The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that Royal Assent to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act has been signified. The Act became law on 20November2000.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: I am informed that MrMcGrady will not be attending today’s sitting of the Assembly. Therefore his topic for today’s Adjournment debate has been withdrawn.

Student Finance

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the first report of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment on student finance and calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest feasible opportunity.
This debate is timely. A number of Members have called for it in recent months. More than two months ago the Committee publicly signalled its intention to have this debate. We recognise at the outset that this is an interim report. Ideally, we would have liked longer to deliberate and consult, but our work was halted for the three-month period of suspension. We are well aware of the urgency attending this issue, as are the public and the student body. In the early autumn, departmental officials indicated to the Committee that they would like to hear our views before the Minister completed his review and before the onset of the current budget process.
Before I turn to the report’s contents, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to a number of people who have made it possible. I would like to note the immense hard work of the Committee Clerk, the Committee staff, and our advisers, Prof Bob Osborne and his team from the Centre for Research on Higher Education and Dr Nuala Bryce- Gormley.
The report was unanimously agreed in Committee, and I think that is a tribute to the perseverance of Committee members. Perhaps it is an indication that our rather unusual multi-party arrangements in the Assembly can work. Most of the Committee work was carried out in public session. In that sense, it is also an example of transparent government.
I will now turn to the report’s contents. We face four options and our report aspires to one of these options as the best possible balance between the possible and the ideal. I will review the merits and demerits of each of the four options in turn.
The first option would be to keep things as they are — what you might term the status quo. It is fairly easy to dismiss this option because that would not prevent certain groups being deterred from applying for, or entering, further or higher education. We have data on the declining numbers of mature students entering the sector in Northern Ireland, and there are indications of declining numbers of working-class students across the United Kingdom. In any case, there has obviously been change in the administration of student support in England, Wales and Scotland, so, given parity considerations, Northern Ireland simply cannot afford to stand still.
The second option would be to go back to the system that used to operate in the 1960s. In that system there would be no parental contribution to tuition fees, and generous grants would be available. Appealing though this option might be to some people, it is neither reasonable nor fair. Let me give two reasons for that. The first is the pragmatic issue — the problem, as it were, of the "massification" of higher education. It is no longer 5% of the relevant age group who go to higher education; the figure is now approaching 50%. Given that, student support has to be more tightly targeted on those who really need it.
There is the important issue of principle. Some students gain, and gain substantially in financial terms, from their course of study. This was recently confirmed by the Harmon and Walker study, which suggested a graduate premium of between 16% and 46%. Such graduates should make a proportional contribution to the costs of their teaching.
The third option is to apply the English model — the changes introduced by Minister Blunkett in early 2000 — to Northern Ireland. That would involve a smallish number of bursaries for the disadvantaged. It would also include raising the threshold at which tuition fees became payable from £18,000 to roughly £20,000.
The application of the Blunkett package to Northern Ireland would be costly, though probably less so than the alternatives. It would at least provide for parity with one part of the United Kingdom. Application of the English model would be a move in the right direction albeit much more will be needed in the longer term to achieve the wider social access to further and higher education, which I believe we all want to see.
The fourth option is to apply a modified Scottish model, as inspired by the so-called Cubie Report and the subsequent Scottish Executive decisions. I recognise, however, that there are some differences between Cubie and the Scottish Executive and that there have been implementation problems in terms of the situation in Scotland.
Broadly speaking, this is the option that the Committee report comes down in favour of. It would involve an end to tuition fees, some means-tested grants and some deferred contributions — although those will be paid by graduates only when they pass a high threshold of income and salary. The Committee unanimously agreed this package because, in part, we felt that the perception of tuition fees and the reality of student debt was deterring entry into further and higher education on the part of certain disadvantaged groups, and we felt that we should recommend that some disadvantaged groups should become eligible for grant support.
We also believed that the principle of deferred contribution was a good one. It is not the same as a so-called graduate tax, because the contribution is a fixed amount, and once the graduate has paid it he has to pay nothing more for the rest of his working career.
European Union law implies that we could extend such provisions only to those Northern Ireland students who stay in Northern Ireland. This is why the Committee, in its report, has also recommended further expansion — and we certainly welcome the expansion which is already occurring — in the number of further education and higher education places so as to at least reduce the number of what you might term unwilling student exiles from these shores.
If we had had longer to deliberate, if suspension had not occurred, we would also have liked to look in more detail at the position of further education, and we note that in this area the database relating to the types of students in the sector is particularly underdeveloped. Our own ongoing Committee inquiry on the training system will have a particular focus on further education. We recognise the principle that further education should be treated with more equity relative to higher education, as the Dearing Report recommended three years ago.
This is a huge question that would have enormous financial implications. It would have implications for Departments other than the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment — for example, the Department of Education in terms of the funding of schools relative to the institutes of further and higher education.
Part-time students should also be treated better, and we also recommend that the Minister make available, if possible, the findings of the United Kingdom Interdepartmental working group on the relationship between students and the welfare system, if and when they are completed.
A key point in the motion refers to implementation, when it is feasible. We recognise that the Minister and the whole Executive have difficult choices, and our preferred package does contain various elements, but not all of them would have to be implemented at once. The first priority is probably additional grant support for students from low-income backgrounds. This might involve an extra £20 million per annum for the 16,000 full-time undergraduates who come from family backgrounds where income is less than £23,000 per annum. We are talking about bursaries of about £500 to £2,000.
Then there are the additional higher education places. If we were to go for an extra 4,000 places, over and above the 4,400 already agreed up to 2004, that would cost £30 million. Then, of course, there is the removal of parental and spouse contributions to tuition fees amounting to £12·5 million. That implies a gross cost of £60 million or more, though the net figure might be reduced through associated savings on spending on student loans and other related hardship and access funds.
There may well be a view that the report should have said more about the costings of our proposals. Equally, the value of the Department’s own review would have been increased if it had provided the public with costings of the likely financial implications of the various options facing the Northern Ireland student support system. After all, it was pretty clear as early as February what the four options were going to be. I have addressed those four options.
Vision can and should be applied to the financing of student support; both the target of regional competitiveness and that of social equity are tied up with this issue. They are also key concerns in the Programme for Government, which is being deliberated by this House. The International Fund for Ireland and the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation have shown how it is possible, with imagination, to attract external funds — notably from the United States, the Commonwealth and the European Union — to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the subject of student finance, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, could similarly attract the vision of sponsors from overseas.
The Committee has sought to perform its statutory duty to share in policy development. In devising this report, we started from first principles and listened widely to interested groups, including the National Union of Students and Union of Students in Ireland. Mr Andrew Cubie, who chaired the comparable study in Scotland roughly a year ago, contributed directly to our deliberations through a videoconferencing session. We looked at practice across the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland and internationally.
Supporting students adequately is costly. The Committee accepts that the entire burden should not be carried by public expenditure in Northern Ireland. At the same time, not supporting students would also have a cost. Higher education and further education are two of the main engines of economic growth. In the long run, if we do not have economic growth we will not have the funds for other areas of public expenditure, which, admittedly, are competing against the funding of student finance in the short term.
There is much good going in higher and further education. The Committee commends that in its report. I would not normally quote former Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, but he once said that he represented the first generation in his family — I think he said in a thousand generations, though I am not sure how he could go that far back — to attend university. That phrase was subsequently and infamously plagiarised by a United States politician. Some Members of this House, including myself, could say the same as Mr Kinnock.
Social access to higher and further education has been widened, but we have not yet reached the point where all those who have the ability to benefit from higher and further education can afford to go into it. Many members of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, who I know would undoubtedly have had the ability to benefit from higher education, could not do so because their family background meant that they could not afford it. Above all, we do not want to return to that situation.
This report represents a target, a goal, an aspiration. All the members of the Committee agreed to it. It may not be immediately realisable, but that does not mean that we should not aspire to it in the long term.

Mr Speaker: There is one amendment, standing in the name of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all the words after "Assembly" and add
"notes the first report of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment on Student Finance and calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to consider the Committee’s recommendations as he moves towards a conclusion of the review of student support."
I welcome today’s debate. It should make a useful contribution to the review of student financial support that I announced last February. I announced the review because I was mindful of the difficult financial circumstances experienced by many of our higher and further education students. I wished to carry out a comprehensive review of student support, encompassing higher education, further education and, indeed, part-time and full-time study. The review, which was carried out by my Department, ended on 30 June; the period of suspension of the Assembly ended on 29 May. Before reaching any decisions on changes to the existing system, I was obliged to hear the views of the Assembly Committee and, therefore, to await the publication of this report.
The report gives the Assembly details of the Committee’s views. I will take full account of the Committee’s recommendations, along with the many other representations made to me during consultation. However, it would be neither appropriate nor desirable that the Assembly should reach conclusions on the future of student support in Northern Ireland that are based solely on the recommendations of the Assembly Committee. The motion moved by the Chairperson of the Committee asks the Assembly to approve its recommendations and asks the Minister to implement them. The Chairperson emphasised that the report is an interim report, a work in progress to which much more needs to be added. Therefore it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to approve and seek the implementation of the recommendations at this stage.
My amendment requires me to consider the report in the formulation of my final proposals. I stress that I am very grateful to the Committee for its report. Much thought and hard work, in a short time, has gone into its production. I share many of the principles on which the report is based, including the provision of adequate support for individual students and the promotion of lifelong learning, and I agree that we should increase participation and widen access, particularly for under-represented groups. Furthermore, I agree that local further and higher education should meet the strategic needs of Northern Ireland’s economy. Since taking office I have repeatedly stressed the value of such principles in the Chamber and elsewhere.
I have to say, however, that in three key areas the report leaves some important questions unanswered or inadequately answered.
First, the Committee’s report contains no detailed costings to inform our deliberations on its recommendations. The Chairperson provided some costings in his remarks, but the report itself contains none of those in detail. Therefore no meaningful assessment of whether the recommendations are affordable, or what priority should attach to them, is possible by Members this morning.
My officials have calculated that the complete abolition of tuition fees for both higher and further education students could cost up to £35 million in a full year. In present circumstances, with 50% of our students paying no tuition fees because they are from lower income families, this would amount immediately to a massive subsidy to the better-off in our society.
Similarly, the reintroduction of non-repayable grants would cost a further £30 million. Members should appreciate that the total current student support budget for both higher and further education amounts to around £130 million. We would therefore be seeking additional financial resources of around £65 million for these two requirements alone.
There is no estimate for the cost of setting up and maintaining the proposed Northern Ireland Student Endowment Charitable Trust, nor any indication of when, or by how much, that trust would bring back resources into higher education to support the Committee’s recommendations. It would be unlikely that significant contributions would flow from the graduate levy for some considerable number of years, while the amounts from business and other sources — if, indeed, we could attract them to any significant degree — could only be extremely speculative at the moment.
There would be additional costs associated with the recommendation to establish a one-stop shop for the assessment and administration of student financial support — costs not even mentioned in the Committee’s report. Total additional costs could therefore be in excess of 50% of current requirements for student support.
Given these considerations, it would not be possible for me, or for the Executive Committee, to proceed without a clear identification of the overall financial consequences and the implications for the budgets of all Departments. Demands escalate every week when we meet in this Assembly with respect to the range of services that concern Members. I share many of those concerns, but there are cost implications quite clearly associated with moving to meet them all.
A second area of considerable concern — and I ask Members to take perhaps even more interest in this point — is an issue related to equity. Members will have heard and noted the Chairperson of the Committee making the recommendation to restrict the abolition of the tuition fees to Northern Irish students studying in Northern Ireland institutions. The Chairperson acknowledged that, while this restriction is a function of European Union legislation, it would create an important issue relating to equity and fairness.
Members are well aware of the large numbers of our students who are pursuing studies outside Northern Ireland. The Committee’s recommendations would mean that approximately 33% of our students who traditionally study in Scotland, England and Wales would be disadvantaged compared to their peers who choose to study locally. I doubt whether Members would want me to implement recommendations amounting to a form of discrimination between students who stay and those who, for whatever reason, voluntarily or otherwise, choose to study outside Northern Ireland.
Those who argue that that precedent has already been set in Scotland should remember that only 7% of Scottish students opt to study outside Scotland. Even if we were to accept that, there are particular concerns related to equity here in our society that should make us pause and think long and hard before supporting such a recommendation.
In the second volume of its report, on page141, in a paper from the Committee’s own special advisers, a warning is sounded on this recommendation:
"Such a policy might well be seen as discriminatory and certainly not New-TSN compatible. It could well be challenged under the DHFETE Equality Scheme. The crucial issue is that only applying the scheme in Northern Ireland under current circumstances would be unfair. It should be noted that even if offered only to Northern Ireland students it would be also available to EU students studying in Northern Ireland."
Should this recommendation be adopted we would have the anomalous situation in which a Northern Irish Administration would have to support students from other European Union states, while being unable to offer similar support to many thousands of our own students. I expect that Members on all sides of the House and, indeed, in all parties would be extremely unhappy about supporting such a recommendation.
This is a second very important reason why, in my view, it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to approve the Committee’s recommendations at this stage, let alone ask that I implement them. I acknowledge that to address the particular difficulty with respect to students moving outside Northern Ireland, the Committee advances the argument that additional higher education and further education places be made available to enable more students to follow courses at home. Increasing places at our local institutions is already part of my Department’s policy.
However, I must point out that it would not be possible to provide all of the approximately 1,500 to 1,700 places needed in our local universities and colleges in order to accommodate all of our students and do so in the immediate or foreseeable future. I imagine that many Members, if not all, would agree that it is highly unlikely that we would ever wish to curtail movement outside of Northern Ireland for all further and higher education. In those circumstances, if we did, there would be considerable opposition. If we allowed the present situation to continue, a form of discrimination would persist, with increasingly fewer students choosing to go outside Northern Ireland and the majority remaining.
Tuition fees would have to be abolished not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales if that situation were to be avoided. However, given the deep convictions and the very real concerns on the matter of tuition fees across all parties, including my own, I will pursue the issue at a meeting in London I am having tomorrow with Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment.
The third area of concern to me is with respect to further education and part-time study. In setting out the terms of reference for my review, I stressed that it covered the full spectrum of support for both full-time and part-time students at both higher education and further education levels. The Committee’s report is virtually silent on the issue of further education students’ needs. It argues that decisions on funding should ensure more provision for the further education sector but makes no detailed recommendations on that provision. Nor does it address in any effective way support for the many thousands of part-time students either in higher or further education.
I recognise and acknowledge the complexity of dealing with such issues and the pressure of time under which the Committee operated. However, I am somewhat disappointed not to have received more considered views on student support in the important areas of further education and part-time study.
The report is therefore incomplete. That is another reason why it would be wiser for the Assembly to ask that the report be noted and that I give it my full consideration, rather than for the Assembly to approve it and seek to have me implement its recommendations.
I felt it necessary to point out the inadequacies in the Committee’s report. However, once again, I acknowledge that there is a wealth of useful information in the Committee’s report, and since receiving it I have been taking full account of it in formulating my proposals for changes to the student support system.
While I cannot at this point outline the detail of what my proposals for change will be, I can give Members an indication of the broad objectives which I wish to achieve, and I believe that they reflect the opening remarks of the Chairperson of the Committee this morning.
I wish to emphasise targeting social need and the pursuit of greater equality as central to my strategy. I wish to promote lifelong learning through increasing participation in higher and further education. I wish, in particular — again I find myself almost echoing the words of the Chairperson — to target resources at those who are less well off, thereby widening access to those from among the under-represented groups in society. I wish to give a greater sense of financial security to all our higher and further education students.
Work is well advanced on the review. My officials are now fully engaged with the Department of Finance and Personnel, and I hope to announce my proposals in the very near future. However, in line with the requirements of equality legislation and my Department’s equality scheme, I having made my announcement, those proposals will be subject to further consultation with a wide range of interests, including the Assembly Committee, before they can be finalised. That point cannot be reached until early in the new year. We will therefore return to this issue soon, but in returning to it we will be discussing and debating it in the full knowledge of all the proposals for an improved scheme for student financial support.
I trust that Members have paid attention to my efforts to give my views on the report — both positive and where I have some reservations. I trust that those reservations are appreciated as well. Given all these considerations, I ask Members to support the amendment, assuring them that the report will continue to receive my full consideration and that we can soon, as a result, move to an early announcement with respect to proposals for our future schemes for student financial support.

Mr Speaker: Given the number of Members who have indicated a wish to speak — a substantial number of them since the commencement of the debate — I will have to limit the time for each Member to six minutes. The mover of the motion and the mover of the amendment will have 10 minutes at the end to wind up. As Members will know, the Business Committee indicated that the debate would finish not later than one o’clock.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: Unlike Dr Birnie, I do not have the benefit of a university education, but I trust that that will not impair my opinion of the value and the virtue of such an education.
I expect that most Members will support me in the belief that access to higher education provides a very important platform for adult life, enhanced employment opportunities and the general well-being of society. We are dealing with an investment in human capital. Most economic experts conclude that a highly educated workforce may well led to faster economic growth than a well trained workforce.
A university education also provides an individual with considerable private returns through increased job prospects. All our students are vital stakeholders in society, and therefore I am disappointed by the amendment that the Minister has moved this morning. The Minister’s amendment contradicts the carefully worded original motion, in which great care was taken to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations would be implemented at the earliest feasible opportunity. If this amendment is accepted, many of the teeth will be taken out of the report, and the work of the Committee should not be devalued in this way.
Education offers the only opportunity to many in society to break out of the cycle of deprivation, which is being passed through generations. It seems ironic that, as our economy appears stronger and healthier, uncertainty is increasing among students and their families about the affordability of higher and further education.
The high cost and a fear of debt deters many people of all ages from entering higher education. Local research indicates that Northern Ireland students are more sensitive to financial issues than their counterparts in Great Britain are. This is perhaps because of their social class profile. Average student debt levels are increasing. The cost to students of attending university has increased by 103% since 1994. The Government estimate that, on graduating from a three-year course outside London, which began in 1999, a person who has taken out a full student loan will owe more than £10,000. While the cost of studying in Northern Ireland is on a par with that in other UK areas outside London, graduate earnings in Northern Ireland are considerably lower than the UK average.
There is ample evidence that student hardship is forcing increasing numbers of students to withdraw from their courses. Our advisers gathered information which indicated a high incidence of full-time undergraduates taking part- time work. Evidence from the National Union of Students and Union of Students of Ireland shows the increase in hours worked by students to meet basic costs. This is a critical factor in the increased rate of students dropping out of courses. Student hardship is now widely acknowledged to be a factor which damages the quality of academic life. All statistics show that, upon graduation, our young people face a wall of debt.
The Committee’s report advocates a system of funding which would remove financial barriers to education. Education is a right which exists alongside other competing rights, including the right to life, the right to security in one’s home, the right to healthcare and the right to a job. All sections of our community should have full access to all of these rights. Rights create responsibilities, and the Committee’s report provides the correct balance between what is affordable and our desire to maximise the access of all to high-quality, life-long learning.
In return, students are being asked to take prudent control of their finances and not to expect money over and above a realistic living allowance, thus ensuring they do not have to opt out of a course midstream or take on excessive hours of work to make ends meet. On graduation, those who enjoy above-average earnings are being asked to contribute at a level they can afford to help ease the burden of the further education of successive students.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was disappointed by the Minister’s contribution: he noted the report but did not welcome it. I was also disappointed at John Dallat’s eleventh-hour comments on radio this morning, in which he rubbished his own report — the report of the Committee of which he is a member. Having discussed the various options open to us in depth in the Committee, to have a Committee member rubbish the report this morning was unhelpful — and I say so with a degree of anger, a Cheann Comhairle.
Throughout the debate, Sinn Féin has held the view that student fees should be abolished. As Mr Carrick said, we maintain, from a very principled point of view, that this burden of debt should not be placed upon our young people and their parents. Young students should be the beneficiaries of our education system, not the victims of debt.
Sinn Féin argued in Committee for the abolition of student fees. We reached the point where we planned to issue a minority report, but we then rejected that in favour of a consensus report from the Committee. We discussed the consensus report with the student body and, with its agreement, recognised the need to bring this debate to the Chamber as quickly as possible in order to relieve the current tensions in third-level education.
A Cheann Comhairle, the greatest single reason for young people not entering third-level education is the fear of debt, and the greatest single reason for their leaving it is the inability to service that debt. That is a burden that society and we, its representatives, should be acutely and sensitively aware of. It is a burden that denies young people the opportunities that many in this part of the House benefited from when Aneurin Bevan made education a right and not a privilege. On many occasions John Hume has extolled the virtue of free education, admitting that had it not been for free education, he himself would not have had a third-level education. Nor would many others of his generation and of my generation and those who have featured prominently in the political life of this part of Ireland in the last 40 years have had a third-level education had it not been for the abolition of student fees by a Labour Government in the late 1940s. Therefore we argue unashamedly for the abolition of student fees. We realise that in bringing this report to the House we are, as the Chairman of the Committee has said, attempting to open up the debate.
The Minister referred to equality proofing. Our report went to the Equality Commission for proofing. Throughout our discussion in Committee and with the Minister and his officials we have attempted to outline the direction in which we are going.
In many ways it is a bit sad for the Minister to insinuate this morning that he did not know the way in which the Committee was moving on its report on education. In private meetings with the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson the Minister was made aware of this very clearly and very forcefully. All along the line he has resisted the report’s is coming before the Assembly.
Education is a right and not a privilege. Other Members have referred to educationally disadvantaged areas which affect all people across the divide. Currently, a higher percentage of young Protestant people from unskilled, working-class backgrounds are not reaching third-level education — a higher percentage than from the equivalent Catholic community. This illustrates how it affects not only people on this side of the House but those on the other side of the House as well. The problem affects us all, and students in particular.
To be motivated by centralism and to make references to the Barnett formula and other matters is all very well and good, but if I may refer perhaps to the —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Prof Monica McWilliams: First, we should note that this is the first all-party consensus report that has come to the Assembly. When Members vote today let them remember that the report was not easily arrived at.
How many recommendations come to the Assembly that all parties agreed to in the Committee, knowing that they were making a compromise in doing so, knowing that every party had to give up something to arrive at that consensus? It was hard work, and as a result of that hard work — twice we had to sit into the evening — we arrived at a consensus rather than bring forward a number of minority reports. We have gone as far as we can towards securing a package of financial assistance for our students that promotes access and inclusivity.
In the limited time that I have I am going to address the three main issues that the Minister tasked us with. First, the Minister argued that the current expenditure package is approximately £130million. The figures I have in front of me suggest that it is more like £135million, but we will not quibble over £5million. I suggest that it is complex, that it is means-tested and that it is not reaching the students most in need.
The Minister has argued that we have not supplied exact figures. Over and over again the Committee asked the Department to provide modelling, student figures and a breakdown of figures for the options that we might put forward. We received nothing, and we had to rely on our researchers and apply the Cubie Report on Scotland to Northern Ireland. So if there is any blame, it does not lie with the Committee.
You also argue that our one-stop —

Mr Speaker: May I encourage the Member to speak through the Chair.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I will do that.
The Minister queries the expenditure involved in the one-stop shop of the endowment charitable fund that we hope to establish. We would argue that we are currently losing a great deal of money because of the complicated nature of the current system.
Constituents frequently point out to Members the difficulty of accessing that fund elsewhere, as well as the difficulty of having a system that lies outside Northern Ireland. I argue that it would be money well spent. On costs alone, we tried to get a package that included cost sharing. That was the compromise — the sharing of costs among Government, students and parents, and I believe we came up with the best possible financial package.
The most inequitable thing about higher and further education — and particularly higher education — is that there is low participation from low-income groups. Unfortunately, despite the changes in the Republic of Ireland, there has not been any greater increase in participation there.
Nonetheless, I argue that we addressed the issue of equity. We looked at disadvantaged groups and we argued not only that tuition fees should be abolished but that a graduate contribution should only be made once an individual was earning £25,000, depending upon his needs and means. What more equitable system could we have argued for? That was another compromise. Indeed, for my party it was a compromise that the most disadvantaged should receive non-repayable grants. We looked at low- income families, the unemployed and mature students, who have recently gone down rather than up in number as a consequence of the current inequitable system. We looked at the issues of childcare, travellers and single parents. We adopted the principle of social need. We argued that resources should be ring-fenced to promote social inclusion. The Minister argued that the report was incomplete. We would argue that it brings proposals to Members. Unfortunately, we do not have the Minister’s proposals.
What Members see, we hope the students will get. We cannot possibly ask anyone to vote on what they do not see in front of them. We have tackled the issue of further education, but we would like to have done so more comprehensively. We promote and encourage lifelong learning. I suggest to Members that when they support the motion, they will be supporting a range of recommendations that will help equity and social inclusion.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid the Member’s time is up.

Mr Roy Beggs: I wish to focus on a particular aspect of the report that was highlighted. I was not so fully aware of it until we carried out this detailed research to present to the Assembly. A few other Assembly Members have already referred to recommendation 17, which says that an additional 3,000 undergraduate places, rising to 4,000, should be created. That is on top of the 4,200 places already announced. Why is such additional expenditure needed in Northern Ireland and why should that be the Assembly’s priority?
I draw Members’ attention to table 10 in volume 2 of the research paper which accompanied the report. It shows that approximately 4,000 Northern Ireland students travel to Great Britain each year for further education. Those students should have the right to choose where they go to obtain a particular university degree or enrol in a course that they cannot get here. However, if they have to leave Northern Ireland because entrance levels are that much higher as a result of competition, that is clearly wrong. They are being forced to go. That is wrong, and it is an issue it we must address.
It has been estimated that two thirds of those leaving Northern Ireland leave reluctantly. Many of our best young people are forced to leave to obtain an education. That is Northern Ireland’s loss.
It is estimated that 85% of students who leave never return. We lose a high percentage of the best of our young people.
Historically, Northern Ireland has had high levels of unemployment, and our most able young people sought a better education and better forms of employment. Opportunities were greater in other places and, to a certain extent, still are. Unemployment in Northern Ireland — last month’s figure was only 5·2% — is now lower than that in many other regions of the United Kingdom. The district council claimant account shows that every council in Northern Ireland is now showing single-figure unemployment. So there are opportunities.
For our economy to progress we must ensure that people do not leave never to return. For the betterment of Northern Ireland we need to ensure that places are available in Northern Ireland so that, in turn, our companies will progress and provide stable employment in the long term.
The Unionist community is concerned that some of our universities are a cold place for Unionists, particularly Queen’s University in recent months. First, the Officer Training Corps was not allowed to have a stall in the freshers’ bazaar. That sends a clear message that pro-British people are not wanted at the university. The number of societies at Queen’s has reduced by 29 over the last few years, so it was not that there was a lack of space, rather that British culture was not wanted there. That needs to be addressed by the Minister and by that union in particular.
Secondly, there was an interesting letter from the deputy president of Queen’s Student Union in ‘The Irish News’. She raised the issue that the number of students coming from the Republic of Ireland is down from 3,000 to 2,500. I have no difficulty with students choosing to come here, but I am surprised that she highlights the number of students coming from another European country, when our students have to travel to another region of the United Kingdom to gain education. I wrote to her over a fortnight ago and have yet to receive a reply. If she were also highlighting the need for additional places for local students there would be some validity in her words. Clearly, she is interested in providing additional places only for students from the Republic of Ireland. This will exclude local students as they would then have to go elsewhere. The Minister will have to make Unionists comfortable in our universities so they do not choose to leave.
I accept that there are particular difficulties in introducing the recommendation immediately. On occasions the Minister suggested that we need an additional 17,000 to 19,000 places. However, we need only about 2,000 to 4,000 places immediately to fill some of the gaps where people are being forced to go elsewhere.
The motion must be taken forward by the Minister. I accept that we have been unable to get hard facts and costs — that is the Minister’s responsibility. However, the motion does mention "the earliest feasible opportunity", and I suggest —

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Mr John Dallat: I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Esmond Birnie, the Committee members and the staff for their help in compiling this report. In response to Mr John Kelly, I stated very clearly on the radio this morning that the contribution of this report will prove valuable to the Minister. If I am to be criticised for highlighting the fact that there were concerns about trageting social need, social justice and human rights then I stand by my case.
I welcome the unanimity of the report. We had to work hard to achieve that. I want the report to assist us in our central aim, which is to enhance our commitment to human rights and social justice. In practical terms, we must be sure that the report will assist the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in his task of determining forms of financial support for higher and further education. We want to contribute to proposals that will give anyone, from any background, the chance to educate themselves, develop a career and live as independently as possible. Our central aim must be to widen access and to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to develop their full educational potential, regardless of — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members will please give the Member a hearing.

Mr John Dallat: Public spending on further and higher education and training is not only a prudent investment for the future, but a fundamental right. The Minister had that point in mind when he commissioned his Department’s review of student fees. This report is one response to that review. There are other responses. That is right and proper. The shortcomings of the current system are clear. The mix of loans, fees and parental contributions is as confusing as it is inadequate. The hardships are well documented and unacceptable. Those most affected are the children of lower-income families. They must continue to be prioritised. This is not an easy choice, but we must retain our commitment to human rights and social justice.
My party wants to see the abolition of tuition fees and the restoration of grants, if and when that is possible. I said so in a radio interview this morning. Evidence from the Republic of Ireland shows that the percentage of students from lower socio-economic groups will not rise significantly with the removal of fees. That cannot be ignored, as we develop a system of further and higher education — on a limited budget — which targets social need, giving a better chance to the many young people who were disgracefully underfunded in the past. Many of those are in further education, where I was educated. In the dark days of direct rule many people, particularly women, lost out on educational opportunities. Through community education or lifelong learning projects, these people are entitled to a new chance.
The needs of the 250,000 or more people who, through no fault of their own, have difficulties with literacy and numeracy have to be addressed. I have highlighted that point in this Assembly many times. At last, we are winning on that issue. We have a duty to insist on their right to overcome their difficulties and to end the spiral of educational disadvantage. We must prepare them for the world of work.
It is against this background that we ask the Minister to address the problems of university fees. We know that 50% of students do not pay fees and 20% make some contribution, while the remaining 30% pay full fees. In deciding whether to support the amendment, we are not being asked to reject the document. We must ask whether the Minister is being handcuffed by our insistence on the proposal.
We have to be sure that the groups about which I have spoken do not lose their basic human rights as a result of our recommendations. All contributions to the review must be equally proofed and must target social need. They must not disadvantage those who need most help. I am concerned about the 4,500 students who go to England, Scotland or Wales for their university education. Some choose to go, but most do not. There is no help available for them under EU regulations.
The document will fulfil a valuable purpose and will influence the outcome of the review. It is not a solution in itself and should not be delivered to the Minister with a set of handcuffs. That would threaten the future of the disadvantaged groups about whom I feel so passionately. That view does not diminish my concern for students in higher education and the hardships they endure. The work of the Committee must continue in order to alleviate hardship and establish social justice for all.

Mr William Hay: I welcome this debate. As Monica McWilliams said, it was painstaking work for the Committee to achieve a unanimous report. I note that Mr Dallat said he welcomed the report, although he did not say he supported it, which is quite a difference. I shall go further and say that he and his Colleague on the Committee supported the wording of its Chairman’s motion before the Assembly this morning.
If we are serious about destroying student debt and poverty, we should not cut corners in our attempts to do so. We all know that any new scheme we introduce in Northern Ireland will cost a great deal more money than we are spending at present. When the Committee came to discuss a number of pieces of work it intended to cover in the course of the year, we all identified and agreed on student poverty and debt as a priority for action.
We all recognise that student poverty and debt have long been acknowledged as a key weakness in promoting access to further and higher education in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that many of our young people start university life owing money, go through university owing money and come out severely in debt. Many students must work long hours to service and get rid of that debt. The stark reality of student finances in Northern Ireland is that many spend long years after they leave university paying off debt.
It is also a fact — and other Members have mentioned it — that the fear and cost of debt often debar our young people from entering education in Northern Ireland. It was also unanimously agreed in the Committee that the abolition of upfront fees would be a start to resolving some of the issues relating to student debt and poverty.
Another issue which I thought very important is the building of closer links with industry and business so that they might pay for education. They should do so as of right, for if business and industry get a well-educated young workforce, they should be paying something into the education system. For far too long in Northern Ireland, business and industry have not had that strong link to education, and many industries ignore it.
Time does not allow us to have the long debate needed to resolve the issue of student finance. We need a student support system tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland and its young people so that we all might encourage life- long learning. For John Dallat and the Minister to come to the Chamber this morning and raise issues concerning this report smells of hypocrisy.
We all have party political policies in Northern Ireland regarding student finance. We all decided to compromise on some of those policies to get a unanimous report, and this was basically achieved. However, Members of the Committee have now come to the Assembly and said that in many ways they are sympathetic to the report, but on the other hand they are not able to tell the House that they will be supporting it. Those are two different issues.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This motion does not ask that free education be made available tomorrow. It does not even state that this would be the desirable outcome of the review in addressing student needs. Whatever the issue of handcuffing Ministers, the fact is that lack of proper funding is crippling students.
The motion asks the Assembly to approve the first report by the Committee of Higher and Further Education on student finance. It also asks the Minister to implement the Committee’s recommendations — 18 in all — at the earliest feasible opportunity. We recognise the constraints of the Barnett formula and the Minister’s difficulties, but it is up to the Minister to argue for additional finance, as part of the peace formula. The motion is therefore perfectly reasonable in what it asks the Assembly and the Minister to do.
The report, and its recommendations, represents many months of deliberations, research and evidence taking. In truth, it could be argued that the Committee devoted as much time to its response to the review as the Department devoted to the review itself. As Committee members we needed to do justice to an issue that is about justice. I say to Mr Dallat that I do not remember a lot of time being devoted to discussions on human rights and TSN. We wanted to acknowledge the Minister’s initiative in setting up the review of student finance, and we hoped that, together, we could get the best solution for our student population.
In addressing the issue the Committee has been aware of the terms of reference set out by the Department. We are also aware that the Department received only 50 submissions in relation to the review, whereas the Cubie inquiry received 700. We have listened to many voices over the months of deliberations and examination of evidence. The Committee commissioned its own research on reports, ranging from Cubie to international models of student finance, graduate earnings, student flows and changes to student benefits and tuition fees. We took expert advice on this matter. We were mindful that we were responding in an advisory and consultative capacity to the Minister’s review, but we still needed to be satisfied that our proposals were addressing the issue of student funding.
We encountered many problems such as inadequate costings by the Department, lack of adequate local research and, as Ms McWilliams said, dissension among Committee members on the first draft. Sinn Féin felt that the draft was a watered-down version of the Scottish model, which in turn was a watered-down version of Cubie. We are aware that this report is not definitive, or final, or the solution to the serious problems of debt and hardship, the decline in numbers and the drop-out rate, which have produced the current crisis among students. It does not totally reflect the positions of Members’ parties on the issue. Indeed, it was because of Sinn Féin’s refusal to support the first draft that the Committee became deadlocked on the issue. At that stage we also had sight of the Minister’s bids, and student funding was not there. Sinn Féin has argued that the Committee should accept the principle of a free education system, funded out of public moneys through a progressive income tax system.
Sinn Féin argued that such a policy would secure the objective that those who benefit most from a financial standpoint from education should also pay most through taxation. We believe that the Government should pay the tuition fees for higher and further education. My party made its submission to the review — as did others — and we pointed out that the position regarding the abolition of tuition fees was now being adopted by Dáil Éireann and the Scottish Parliament.
Sinn Féin believes that the current system, which expects students to shoulder an increasing burden of educational costs, is ultimately self-defeating. Our position is borne out by the National Union of Students and the Union of Students in Ireland.
Updated statistics show that for students the North of Ireland, as a region, is the worst off. The Scottish Parliament has abolished tuition fees and has increased access payments. England and Wales have introduced bursaries, school meals and a £57 million hardship fund. Additionally, the parental contribution threshold will rise from £17,000 to £20,000.
The Committee worked through all these difficulties and made 18 recommendations, which, let us hope, will alleviate hardship if the Department implements them. The Committee also agreed core principles and objectives, which we hope will underpin our future student support system and will apply equally to further and higher education.
In the end, it was the consensus of the Committee that free education, that is, the abolition of tuition fees and restoration of grants, is not feasible at this stage. The 18 recommendations are a compromise — a first step towards that goal and hinged upon the Minister’s adopting the recommendation that the threshold for graduate repayment be set at £25,000.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am pleased to be able to comment even though I am not a member of the Committee. I congratulate the Higher and Further Education Committee in commissioning and producing this report. It is a formidable piece of work. Obviously the Committee and its researchers must be supported in their attempt to look into these issues, which will run parallel with the Department’s review.
It is right to debate this subject today. It gives people like myself the chance to give their comments so that the Minister can be made aware of those comments. I hope that this will become an important part of the relationship between all Committees and Departments. It will allow ownership and accountability in important issues such as these.
The Education Committee is carrying out similar work, looking at the Gallagher Report and the review of the 11-plus, or transfer, procedure. It is clear from the Higher and Further Education Committee, people such as Mr Cubie and the National Union of Students that the research and recommendations are available to help the Minister with the problem of student finance in Northern Ireland. As others have said, it is not just a question of working out a system of funding for thirdlevel students; the problem also involves access, equity and enhancement of our further and higher education system.
The Alliance Party substantially agrees with the set of guiding principles laid down by Mr Cubie in his report on student funding. However, like the Committee we feel that it might be more difficult to achieve these ideas in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that we should not try.
Accessibility, consistency, flexibility and fairness can be achieved only if there are enough places for third- level education, which is patently not the case. Adequate resourcing is the baseline of this report. We cannot depend on European funding any more than the volunteer community groups can. So we must make sure — regardless of whether the costs may be prohibitive at first — that education is accessible and possible for all.
The options outlined by the Committee are comprehensive and acknowledge the fact that students might be prepared to accept some system of payback, if that could go towards financially assisting those less well off or disadvantaged in areas such as physical disability or unemployment.
This assumes, of course, that such amounts would be based on an appropriate level, which graduates could pay back once their salary reached the agreed figure. Scotland ignored the Cubie Report’s recommendation of £25,000 and set the level at £10,000. Presumably Westminster will put Members here in the same position. However, Alliance contests that £10,000 is an unrealistic figure. If this system is adopted, we strongly advise against such a low threshold, especially when graduates are still paying off loans taken out during their period of study.
Another issue which must be examined is the present situation whereby students are ineligible to receive benefits during the summer. During term time, most students have to work 30 to 35hours a week to sustain themselves. If you walk around the university area in Belfast, you will see students working in cafés, et cetera. This is bound to undermine their ability to do their coursework properly, particularly as this type of work is usually low-paid and involves long, unsocial hours.
This whole area is fraught with difficulties, and the Committee has dealt with them as best it can. Issues such as salary premiums need to be closely examined — and I am sure that the Minister’s Department is doing that. The exact processes of any graduate endorsement scheme and the structure in regard to tracking graduates must be looked at if it is decided to include them. However, I also agree with the recommendation that student finances must be periodically reviewed and data built up so that student poverty can be eradicated.
The area of equity is just as complex, and, again, accessibility is the founding principle. There must be exemptions so that all students who wish to go further, but for financial reasons cannot, are catered for. The categories of one-parent families, those with disabilities and mature students are obvious and correct, but there may be a range of exemptions within the main categories. If funding strategies are in place, more places are made available and confidence is extended to those who can get extra support, I hope that most students will take advantage of this. As has been mentioned, the new equality legislation will impact on this area, and the Committee is right to highlight it.
Perhaps the option of a bursary scheme for mature students or the disadvantaged should be re-examined. The Dearing Report recommended more places, and that must be re-examined too. The House should not dismiss it and say "No, that cannot happen." Students who leave Northern Ireland do so not only because of concerns over the situation here but also because suitable courses are not available. This needs to be looked at again. More than 10,000 students studying elsewhere do so because of European legislation which prevents the extension of the abolition of fees. Let us deal with the 38,000 who will benefit. I hope that the numbers going to GB will decrease in the future.
I support the report.

Mr David Ervine: I do not rise to commend the Committee; I rise to commiserate with the Committee. It has been grappling with an ethos that was delivered through the back door. It began under the Tories and has been vigorously maintained by a Labour Administration, to the extent that it is now accepted practice that students must contribute to their own education.
However, students are not being educated only for themselves. They are being educated for society — we get something from them — but the first thing that we do when they sign up is to say to them "No. We want something from you." My brother and I were talking last night about the time when we were kids and could rhyme off 12 people from a working-class background who had gone to university —12 people from one street. I could not name 12 people of similar background in my entire constituency who are able to go to university today.
The ethos that has been delivered to us and maintained against a backdrop of "Education, education, education" is the big problem. However, I do not see the Minister, or the Committee, addressing this. We need to give consideration to east/west relationships, formulate alliances with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Westminster, and begin the process of explaining to the Government that investment in people will get a return. If we fail to invest in people, we will not achieve the return. My party will not be supporting the motion, and it most definitely will not be supporting the amendment.
12.00
Mr Hay made a comment about Mr Dallat. Mr Dallat behaved to his Minister much in the way that the Democratic Unionist Party behaved to its Minister on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. They said things that they did not believe in order to support narrowly — pathetically, in many ways — things that they did not believe. Unless we get radical and there is, dare I say, a form of rebellion, we are not going to achieve very much.
The aspirational circumstances mentioned in this report may or may not achieve something. If we manage to get businesses and Governments, and anybody else who wants to, to throw a few quid in, it is speculative how much would be returned from the students. The situation is simple: either we believe, as an Assembly, that there is a right to free education, as Mr Carrick said, or we do not. Most Members, whether they are on the Committee or whether they have to grapple with the difficulties in the Department, have accepted that education does not have to be free.
Here is a radical idea. Members earn £38,000 per year and are over the threshold for paying something back. Not all Members went to university; we know that the Minister of Education never did, and neither did my Colleague or I. However, plenty of Members did. Some members of the Higher and Further Education Committee went to university, but they never suggested that if we are going to charge the kids of today, why not share the burden? Why not make sure that everyone who has had a university education makes some contribution? The Committee members have only tinkered around what their masters asked them to do.
Is that what a Parliament is about? Is it just to rubber- stamp or play with the figures handed down from Westminster? Or is it about challenging them? Is it about saying "No" and reminding the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the funding has to be made available to help to create visions from dreams? Unless we are prepared to do that, we are wasting our time.
While I appreciate that the Committee has grappled with the issue and that it has been very difficult, the report says much about what we are prepared to put up with rather than about our concerns for education. I have no doubt that the Minister and the members of the Committee have a grave concern and desire that we should promote free education as of right, but instead of rebellion we just get compliance.

Mr Alex Attwood: Reflecting on what David Ervine said, I remember that I cut my political teeth in the students’ union movement in the days when we organised and occupied to kick the Tories out. There may be one or two people sitting not too far away from me who shared that particular experience. It is that experience that informs me in the comments that I make now.
First, I want to acknowledge what Esmond Birnie said: the report outlines targets and goals not realisable but to be aspired to. Whatever happens in this debate, and whatever the Minister might conclude in the next number of weeks, I accept the spirit of the report, even if I differ on some of the details.
There have been some very thoughtful and technical speeches from the likes of Mrs Bell, but there have also been speeches that, in my view, have missed the point of this debate and of the Minister’s contribution. For example, MonicaMcWilliams spoke in various terms. She accepts that there are gaps in the figures used to form the right approach to student funding, access and needs, but she blames the Minister and carries on regardless. However, I have written to the Minister, pointed out where the gaps are and asked him to commission the research to find out what is required. That is a much more helpful and creative approach.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Member accept that the Women’s Coalition did that but got a blank sheet in return?

Mr Alex Attwood: You did not get a blank sheet, and I am sure that the Minister will address that in his concluding remarks. However, you should also acknowledge that there are — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: May I encourage the Member to speak through the Chair.

Mr Alex Attwood: The Member should also acknowledge that there are still serious gaps in the figures. It is not appropriate to make judgements at Committee level, in the Assembly or elsewhere. Members should try to commission the required information in order to make a thorough and informed judgement. If there are serious gaps in what the Committee has outlined to the Assembly they should be acknowledged by the Member rather than ignored by her as she first carries on.
John Kelly rightly talked about the burden of debt and debt aversion. However, he ignored the evidence from the Republic of Ireland on the abolition of tuition fees and the fact that access is still being denied to under- represented groups, especially those from working-class backgrounds. One cannot accept that there are gaps in figures and evidence from other jurisdictions that should inform our debate, and then ignore them. Members should be more thorough and thoughtful.
The Minister dealt with a number of principles. I have not heard any proper, serious, structured rebuttal of them. Those principles should inform the debate in the Assembly.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alex Attwood: I have two and a half minutes left, and it would not appropriate to give way, having already done so once. MrWilson can speak later.
The Minister dealt with principles that will, I presume, inform his final determination and recommendations. The first of those principles was targeting social need. The Committee’s recommendations genuflect towards that issue but do not address it — and it needs to be addressed. I trust that when the Minister speaks in the Assembly in the next number of weeks that will happen.
The Minister also addressed the matter of equality between further education and higher education. The Committee genuflects towards the further education sector, but the Minister’s responsibility is to ensure that there is equality between the trainee medic and the trainee electrician. If that judgement informs the Minister when he makes his determination, advances can be made on that.
The Minister also addressed widening access to those people who are underrepresented in further and higher education and those who are averse to debt. If the Minister addresses that issue in the way that he is indicating, some progress may be made on the matter.
We should also seek to bring about a situation in which there is financial security in the first instance and financial independence in the second for those in third-level education.
Those four principles informed the Minister’s comments today and will, I presume, inform his judgement in the coming weeks.
Those are the correct principles, but that does not mean that what I aspired to and enjoyed as a student 20years ago will be delivered in the first instance. But there will be a system that will promote access to education for the underrepresented and disadvantaged, create a degree of financial independence and security for those in third-level education and create equality across all sectors. Those are appropriate principles that should inform our educational and political new order. I have not heard any serious rebuttal of what the Minister said.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: In response to Mr Ervine, may I say that I sat on the Committee and never had the privilege of going to university. It oversimplifies the matter to say that it is OK for another member of that Committee seemingly to change his mind in order to facilitate a Minister from his party. This is far too important. The education of our children is of paramount importance. I was more than a little angry when I noticed the Minister’s amendment to our proposal this morning. What is the point of having Committees if a Minister can come and, with a stroke of a pen, try to undermine what that Committee has done? My Colleagues and I spent many valuable hours debating this, and to have this amendment put before us this morning is a little mischievous, to say the least.
The economics of modern life in NorthernIreland make university study a two-edged sword. At present, young people who decide to go to third-level education do so knowing that they will commence their education in debt. I have a vested interest in this because my son started Queen’sUniversity this year, and he is the first in my family to do so. He is more fortunate than most because he can travel to university from home, but we can see the poverty of some students. As a Committee we have drawn a responsible conclusion to all that we have said and done.
I call on the Minister to look maturely at our considerations, to listen to what we have said and to change the realities of finance in third-level education today. Children are suffering through lack of money, and it is important for the Minister and the Committee not to get bogged down in the semantics of recommendations. We have an obligation to focus on policy and on what is happening.
More attention needs to be levelled at the difficulties encountered by part-time and mature students. These complicated circumstances are worthy of further scrutiny. However, in the light of the decline in numbers of NorthernIreland students going to the mainland to continue their academic careers, the Minister and the Committee have an ever greater responsibility to facilitate third-level education.
There is much of merit in the Committee’s report, setting repayment thresholds on graduate salaries, for instance. Some Members of the Committee had difficulties with certain recommendations that were put forward. MrDallat knows that we argued over recommendations time and time again, but, because of the unity that was needed for the report, many of us accepted the majority decision of the Committee. I challenge MrDallat: do you still recommend what you recommended in this report?

Mr Speaker: I encourage Members to speak through the Chair.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The idea that business and industry should carry some of the financial burden is important, as is our suggested review of student housing. Important too is the suggestion that a single, independent and accountable funding body be established to administer an even-handed and objective evaluation of claimants in accordance with realistic criteria.
I call on the Minister to work with the Committee, not against it, so that student hardship does not become a compulsory module.

Mr Barry McElduff: Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh thuairisc an Choiste agus ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an oideachais shaoir do chách.
I speak in support of the Committee’s report, albeit in a qualified way. I appreciate the involved process that the Committee has evidently gone through to arrive at consensus. As Eileen Bell has indicated, the Education Committee, of which I am a Member, is similarly undergoing an involved process in relation to selection and the 11-plus debate.
I believe that education is a right and not a privilege, and that education must be free for all. Alarmingly, the SDLP members of the Committee now appear to be backing away from positions that they evidently endorsed in the Committee deliberations and when they signed the report. I would like to hear whether Mr Dallat and Mr Byrne support what they signed up to.
In reality, higher education is still out of reach for many people, and we must all focus on the key objective of significantly increasing the participation rates in further and higher education. Higher education does not come cheaply, but we must seek to provide adequate financial support for students. It is totally unjust to expect the parents of students, as well as students themselves, to shoulder this burden.
We all agree that the current system is not working. The shift from grants to loans has resulted in a decline in the number of students in further and higher education institutions in the North. It is unacceptable that graduates should begin their working lives facing such considerable debts. I agree absolutely with Mary Nelis when she said that regardless of the issue of the handcuffing of the Minister, we should not cripple our students.
There has been significant growth in student financial hardship and poverty. Of necessity, many, if not all, have undertaken part-time jobs, even though they are meant to be on full-time courses. This has not only had a detrimental effect on their studies, but it has had an equally detrimental effect on the health of the students through poor diet. It greatly impinges on the quality of life of students who are working in low-paid jobs and who are unable to meet basic living costs. Similarly, students are required to work very unsocial hours. Again, this is not at all conducive to their studies.
We totally support the principle of free education for all. In a spirit of compromise, my party is prepared to endorse this report.
With regard to the Celtic tiger, I recently spoke to a Sligo County Enterprise Board official, who told me that the success of the Celtic tiger is very much rooted in investment in the education system. I want to emphasise that point. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Danny O'Connor: We are here to discuss student finance. What exactly is a student? Is it just somebody at university or is it somebody in the higher and further education colleges throughout this country? Is it the person who attends on a part-time basis? Is such a person less entitled to adequate finances?
These issues do not seem to be addressed in this report. We talk about targeting social need. As my Colleague Mr Attwood said, the trainee electrician is just as important as the trainee medic. That is perfectly correct. For too long people in further education colleges have been the poor relations.
I want to draw some facts and figures to the Assembly’s attention. Thirty-five per cent of Northern Ireland students travel outside Northern Ireland to study, and this report excludes them.
DrBirnie said that the recommendations had not been equality proofed because they are only a set of recommendations. The reality is that in calling for the implementation of those recommendations —

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Member specifically says that we did not have the recommendations equality proofed. We have done all we are obliged to do. We sent the document to the Equality Commission and it said that we were not obliged to do that. The Equality Commission can now look at it if it so wishes.

Mr Danny O'Connor: The point I am trying to make is that when we try to target equality and social need in the community the recommendations coming forward from the Committee, which is there to advise the Minister, should be proofed, as far as possible, for equality.
I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that 40% of students currently pay the full fees. We have had three Members from Sinn Féin saying that they want free education for everybody. That is an honourable aspiration, but we are suggesting a situation in which 100% of people would be paying a graduate tax. It seems to me that one does not rest very easily with the other. Resources must be made available to target social need in working-class families. Several Members, including ProfMcWilliams, referred to the fact that doing away with fees in Republic of Ireland threeyears ago had not increased the number of working-class people entering higher and further education — not even by 1%. When the Minister is making his decision he should make sure that the resources he has available are targeted specifically at working-class families and at the need that is there.
We have heard Members from the DUP advocating free education for all. Again, it is an honourable ideal, but it should be noted by the Assembly that the DUP was the only political party in Northern Ireland not to make a formal response to the review that the Minister is carrying out. It is all well and good to come in here and get involved in the theatricals when they are not doing very much on the outside —

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Danny O'Connor: No, I have only a minute and a half left.
I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to an article in the ‘News Letter’ of Saturday 11 November about the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education:
"The recent report from the Assembly’s Higher and Further Education Committee on student support paid little attention to either part-time students or those in further education.
Since current financial support regulations push an increasing number of students towards part-time study, this omission would have serious consequences if repeated by the Minister."
I am asking the Minister to look at the overall picture and to listen to people such as those in the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education rather than just to the Committee. The Committee has produced a worthwhile document, but there are inadequacies in it. I would like to see free education some day at the earliest feasible opportunity, but everything has to be paid for. Is the money going to come from health? As MrCarrick said, the right to health is the right to life, so where is the money going to come from?

Mr Peter Weir: I am a member of the senate of Queen’s University, and, having served on the student representative council longer than perhaps any other Member, I bring a certain level of knowledge about student issues to this debate. Anyone who knew me at Queen’s, and knew the attitude I tended to take towards the Students’ Union, will find it surprising that today I support the position of the Students’ Union rather than that of the Minister of Higher and Further Education. That says a lot more about the shift in his party’s stance on the issue than it does about me. I support the motion. This is a worthwhile report.
Some Members opposite have told us of the great inadequacies of this report; criticism after criticism has been levelled against it. It seems strange to me, as someone who is not on the Committee, that such an obviously inadequate report came to be endorsed by the two members of the SDLP on that Committee. Indeed, the motion itself was endorsed, but now they seem to be rowing back from it. To see how much of a U-turn the SDLP has made, look at its manifesto:
"In the new Administration the SDLP will work for … the abolition of student loans and the introduction of a proper grants system."
There is no reference, in its list of priorities, to the abolition of fees. I think it is taken as read that they should be abolished more or less immediately, but it wants to go further by abolishing student loans and introducing a proper grants system. Where now is the great party of socialism across the way there? That seems a very distant past.
Mr Attwood referred to his great fights with the previous Conservative Government. Yet for all the inadequacies of that Government, during its 18 years it never dared to introduce a fee system. The current Labour Government bear that responsibility. Now we have our own New Labour Minister across the way. I was gravely disappointed by his speech. The SDLP is timid on abolishing fees. It seems to say "We have to look at this situation and make sure that all the money is there. Perhaps at some stage in the future it can happen. We have to look at the TSN requirements and make sure we are compatible with England and Wales." The SDLP seems to put everything on the long finger.
From a Students’ Union point of view, this report is not absolutely perfect — I am sure that some of the Students’ Union activists would have gone a lot further — but it is grounded in reality. In fact, the report appears to be so weak in support of students that it even fails the test of Mr Ervine, who seems to think that it is not radical enough. I think we have, for those of us who live in the real world, something that is practical and that takes a major step forward for students.
In his opening speech, Dr Birnie quoted Neil Kinnock’s remarks about his being the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to go to university — a line that I think was later plagiarised by Senator Joe Biden. I am in a similar situation. Because of economic circumstances, this is the first generation of my family to have had the opportunity to go to university. I was one of the lucky people whose university career was in the last days of the student grants system. In my last couple of years, student loans were being introduced. I want to make sure that if my generation is the first with a proper opportunity to go to university, it is not also the last. Further and higher education, as with so much else, should be based on merit: it should be the ability of people, not the ability to pay. That, unfortunately, is the system operating at the moment.
What has been put forward, a gradual process following, in part, the Scottish model, is sensible. It has been said that this is not going to happen overnight. No one is saying that these additional costs will be introduced as part of the current budget, but it is setting down a strong marker that as part of next year’s budget we should look at how we can better support student finance.
This is a sensible solution to the problems facing us. We must invest something in the future to ensure we start attracting students back to Northern Ireland. As the report indicates, we must increase the number of places, because too many students have had to leave Northern Ireland unwillingly. We must ensure that students are properly financed for the future. Targeting social need has its place, but we cannot use that as a smokescreen to hide behind. TSN is not Holy Writ. We must put ourselves in a position whereby TSN, or any other excuse, cannot stop the Assembly from helping people.
As I indicated during the recent debate on the Budget, the key test of devolution would be the difference we could make. Let us make a difference today and back this report.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the way they have conducted their business and their contributions in the Assembly today. They have had a very balanced and reasoned position.
This has been our Committee’s first exercise — and it has been quite an onerous one. The Committee carried out its deliberations primarily on higher education in Northern Ireland and full-time students in higher education. It may have been remiss of us to deliberate primarily on that group of people. However, the Committee was conscious that so many of our students at 18 years of age have to emigrate.
It has long been a deficit in this region that so many of our students have had to go to England, Scotland, Wales or the Republic in order to avail of a higher education course. As someone who has lectured for 20 years in a further education college, I have seen students having to emigrate to get a course because entry requirements were so much higher in Northern Ireland. I know the pain that many of them have gone through, in recent years, because of the worry of debt. Last year I had 20 students located in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic who were in deep financial trouble. The whole administration of the student loans company is one of the most painful exercises that many students and families have had to deal with in the last two to three years. Let us hope that the Department and the Education and Library Boards will deal with this issue at the administrative level.
Virtually every Assembly party believes in the principle of free education. My party has stood for that principle for many years. However, we live in the real world and we cannot achieve it in one year. The Executive have agreed the Budget. There are four parties in the Executive and the Minister has earmarked a certain amount of money for students. Mr Dallat and I argued vigorously for the principle of free education in the Committee. We argued for the plight of those in debt to be acknowledged and for the matter to be addressed. For that reason one of the recommendations was to develop a better grant system for those students who are less well off. I do not have to take lessons from anyone in here about deviating from a long-held party policy.
Forty-four per cent of all 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland now go on to higher education. When I attended Queen’s University in 1973, the figure was only 15%. There has been enormous progress. However, the sad reality is that many students are now suffering severe financial hardship and debt and we must address that issue. I welcome the Minister’s comments that he wishes to provide a greater sense of financial security to all of our higher and further education students.
There is another reality. The Assembly and the Executive are to carry out many reviews. Indeed, many reviews are being carried out at present. One example is the famous review of the 11-plus. I am sure the Minister of Education would not like the Assembly to come to a conclusion on that without a comprehensive review and a very considered outcome. It is just the same in this case. The Minister has held the review. It is disappointing that only a small number of submissions has been made to the Department. The Assembly Committee has deliberated on it for a long time and has given its considered view. We cannot yet ask the Assembly to give wholehearted endorsement to the recommendations, because we have to determine the relationship between an Assembly Committee and the decision-making process for budgetary matters. I am in favour of encouraging the Minister, the Department —

Mr John Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Joe Byrne: Just a moment, please. I am in favour of moving towards the goal that most Members spoke about this morning.
Thirty per cent of our students go on to further education, and they do not get much support. As I have lectured in further education, I know that students get only about £2,000 in grant towards the cost of their college education. Grammar schools get £3,000 on average. The further education sector has been the Cinderella of the education system for a very long time, and I hope that the Minister will address that issue.

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Dr Sean Farren: I have listened very carefully to a debate which has revealed deep concerns and deep convictions about how we should proceed to frame proposals for student financial support across all key categories of full- time university students — full-time and part-time students at both higher and further education levels. Please appreciate the comprehensive approach that I am adopting.
It was acknowledged first by the Chairperson, Dr Birnie, and then by Mrs Nelis, Mr Carrick and others that they realise that these recommendations can probably not be implemented immediately. They are aspirations — some people use that kind of language to describe them. In other words, they are recommendations that we may see implemented over a considerable period of time; on the other hand we may not even start with very many of them. The urgency of implementation seems to have been highly qualified by some Members.
If my objective within the next few weeks is to draft a set of proposals which we can begin to implement, the House needs to hear those rather than comment on my contribution this morning as if it contained the seeds of those proposals. The motion before us today asks for approval and implementation of the recommendations of the report. It would have been dishonest of me not to have pointed out my reservations. This is because the views I have heard here today — however qualified with respect to implementation — certainly show that many Members want these recommendations implemented as part of my proposals, rather than be treated as matters that can wait for a more distant time.
That being the case, I want to make it clear that I have a responsibility to take forward proposals to my Executive Colleagues and eventually to the Committee and to the House. I have a responsibility to point out the reservations associated with the report’s recommendations, lest it be understood that these recommendations were for the here and now and not for some distant future. It is important that Members hear my reservations in that context.
I was disappointed that equity — a major issue — was hardly ever addressed. ProfMcWilliams stated that she would address the issue of equity, but not a single word did she utter about the large number of students who go across the water. By the first recommendation in the Committee’s report, these are the students who would be denied the abolition of tuition fees if that were to be the road we went down. Prof McWilliams and Members from Sinn Féin, who talk a lot about non-discriminatory practices and about principles and targeting social need, said not a word about the discriminatory approach that might result if we were to implement that particular recommendation. As a Minister, I will not introduce any proposal that discriminates against 17,000 students in Northern Ireland who go across the water for further and higher education. Tell me why I should.
The Committee members acknowledge that the report is virtually silent on the needs of further education and part-time students. I believe that I am one of the first people with responsibility for further and higher education in our community to highlight their needs constantly. Furthermore, as part of my proposals for new forms of student financial support, their concerns as well as the concerns of students in universities will be taken into account as fully as possible. I ask those who have ignored that issue and who have sought to say "It does not matter. We can approve the recommendations." but later come forward with proposals in respect of further education students, to go to the colleges in Magherafelt, east Down, Newry, Dungannon, Omagh, Enniskillen, the north-west and the north-east, and talk to their constituents there. They can then explain to them why they are recommending a set of proposals that is virtually silent on their needs. I will not do that. As Minister, I have a responsibility to them, as much as I have a responsibility to full-time university students, and I intend to discharge that responsibility.
Several Committee members said that there has been a communication failure between myself and officials in my Department and members of the Committee. I remind Members that officials, and in particular the official in charge of higher education, appeared before the Committee on several occasions, gave comprehensive information and answered questions raised by the members. I am aware that the Committee members have had recourse to outside advice. I applaud that course of action; they should not simply take the word of officials in any Department if further advice is available from other sources. We need to challenge one another. That advice also contains reservations with respect to the equality issue.
The Chairperson of the Committee said that the Committee had sent its report to the Equality Commission only to be told that the Committee was not obliged to do that. However, before that, the Committee had been told by its own advisers not to apply its abolition of tuition fees suggestion to those who go outside Northern Ireland, as that would not be compatible with New TSN. Mr Weir may say that New TSN is simply a minor irritant, something that we might have to take account of now and again. It is a basic requirement on all Government Departments, just as equality schemes are requirements on all Government Departments. It should be fully considered in this House, not simply waved aside as if it were a minor irritant.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Dr Sean Farren: No. I am winding up, and I am not giving way at this point. The Member has had his say.
We should be proud of what our universities and colleges have achieved. We have seen the numbers increase significantly. Participation in higher education by Northern Irish students has increased by 5% this year. We have seen an increase in part-time and further education enrolments. However, I am aware of the difficulties that students experience with respect to financial support. Within a week of being appointed, as I reminded the House earlier, I announced that it was my intention to proceed with a review of their financial circumstances. Is that betraying indifference to them? Perhaps one of the first reviews undertaken once the Executive was established last December was a review, announced by me, on behalf of students. This was to ensure that they would have as much financial security as we could possibly afford them and, in doing so, address the needs of those who are from backgrounds not traditionally associated with education at the higher and further levels.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank all who contributed to this very worthwhile and sometimes heated debate. Those who have analysed our governmental arrangements under the Belfast Agreement have sometimes asked where the Opposition is. Today we have seen a partial answer. The Committees, on occasion, can serve as opposition, in the best sense, to Ministers and the Executive as a whole — though I did note that the leader of the Progressive Unionist Party seemed to imply that he himself might be the Opposition in this House.
We seem to be breaking new ground, in terms of the relationship between Committee and Executive. I concede that this is a challenge for those of us who are both Committee members and members of parties in the Executive. I do not think that it is fair to charge anybody in the Committee with acting in a dishonourable manner.
Many Members made very valid points. I will not attempt to reply to them in detail, except one where there is simply a factual problem. Mr O’Connor suggested that the report’s proposals amounted to a graduate tax. That is not strictly correct. A graduate tax would be paid throughout a graduate’s working life. Our proposal is a one-off contribution of a fixed sum. There is an important difference in principle and in financial terms.
I now turn directly to the comments of the Minister and to his amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for speaking. He made three particularly significant challenges to the Committee report. I will attempt to respond to them.
First, there is the point about the costing of our proposals. The indicative figures that were presented in the Minister’s speech were of a similar magnitude to those presented in my own. The House will have to decide today and in subsequent debates on this issue whether, in the long run, we cannot afford a sum of £60million per annum. In the long run, if we fail to perfect our student support system, there will be a grievous cost to targeting social need and to the generation of economic growth, which ultimately funds the public expenditure of all Departments.
As early as 2June this year, I requested from the Minister costing details on the likely options for student support facing the Committee, the Department and the House. In my speech, I made a subjective indication, which will not necessarily be shared by all Committee members, of a rank ordering of the stages in which the proposals in the report might be implemented. The priority should be to increase grant support to widen social access. The Minister hinted at this in his speech and in his comments at the weekend.
In response to the challenge regarding equity, I accept that it is true that around 35% of full-time undergraduates leave Northern Ireland to study in Great Britain. I note that the Minister feels that our proposals could be challenged on the grounds of equality and discrimination. Obviously, this remains to be tested, but the Committee has been advised that legal appeals on this basis are not likely to be sound.
I do concede that I do not regard lightly our recommendation of support for some students to the exclusion of others. I can declare a personal interest in this matter because at one point in my career I myself left Northern Ireland to study, so I appreciate that there will be a perception of unfairness. However, the question of principle remains: should we fail to help the clear majority of roughly 65% of Northern Ireland students who study in Northern Ireland because, similarly, European Union law prevents us from helping those students who go?
I agree that the issue of further education is a critical one. The Committee, in its report, recognises the point about equity. We have recommended the establishment, for the first time, of a single statutory funding council to bring together higher and further education. We must all grapple with these increasingly new and flexible patterns of lifelong learning, and this will pose continual challenges to student support systems.
I am pleased with the way in which the Minister recognised and endorsed many of the broad principles of the report, and I am sure that this has also pleased the Committee.
As to the amendment, I am bearing in mind this advice given by Abraham Lincoln: "It is not advisable to change horses mid-stream. " I remain undiminished in my advocacy of this report. The motion is not designed to handcuff the Minister — to use one of the images presented today. Rather, it calls for implementation "at the earliest feasible opportunity". Obviously a judgement must be made on what is financially feasible now, in the medium term and, ultimately, in the long term. At the same time, I welcome the tone of the amendment insofar as it would commit the Minister to bring to bear the report’s principles and conclusions on his own forthcoming review.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: 
Ayes
Billy Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, Michelle Gildernew, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the first report of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment on student finance and calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest feasible opportunity.
The sitting was suspended at 1.11 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Trust Ports

Mr William Hay: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the intention of the Minister for Regional Development to provide legislation regarding trust port status, and calls upon the Minister to safeguard the future of Northern Ireland trust ports, including Londonderry, and especially the smaller ports which will be affected by the announcement concerning the port of Belfast.
Trust ports in Northern Ireland have been very successful, either on their own or with a board of trustees which reinvests profit for the benefit of port users and for regional and local interests. There are three trust ports in Northern Ireland — Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry. There is also the port of Larne, which is operated privately. The port of Belfast is the largest, handling 60% of Northern Ireland’s seagoing trade, with a turnover of between £15 million and £20 million per year, and pre-tax profits of between £9million and £12 million per year. It has 1·6 million passengers and roughly 15·7 million tons of freight passing through each year. The ports of Warrenpoint and Londonderry have turnovers of about £3 million, and pre-tax profits of £700,000. We have to ask why we wish to fix something that is not broken. Many of us involved in the private sector would like to see companies make that kind of turnover and profit.
Those of us who have been involved in trust ports in Northern Ireland have been attempting to persuade the Governent to look at the extension of their powers. It has been recognised that if trust ports in Northern Ireland are to act more commercially and play a greater role in the regeneration of the region, it is vitally important they have powers allowing them to achieve this. If the two smaller ports in the Province are to survive, they have to diversify into non-port activities. It has also been recognised that there has to be an easing of the financial controls with regard to trust ports. There is a desire to improve public accountability. Trust ports should be allowed to act as catalysts for economic regeneration. These changes would put Northern Ireland trust ports on the best footing for the future.
Another interesting issue is that the South of Ireland has for quite some time been extending the powers of its ports, which are essentially private. I remind Members that our trust ports are in direct opposition to those in the South of Ireland. For example, Dublin is in direct opposition to Belfast. That is why it is also vitally important that extended powers be granted as soon as possible to Warrenpoint, Londonderry and Belfast.
I should like to say a word of thanks and pay tribute to the former Minister for Regional Development, Peter Robinson, who, with his officials, recognised that as soon as he entered the Department. The issue is now very much driven by the present Minister for Regional Development, Gregory Campbell. About two years ago the Department of the Environment decided to review Northern Ireland trust ports in general after some very strong lobbying, especially from the two smaller ports — Warrenpoint and Londonderry. There was a great need to look seriously at the extension of trust port powers in Northern Ireland, not least because England, Scotland and Wales had already carried out such a review, with Northern Ireland lagging behind.
The review of the Department of the Environment identified a need to extend the powers of trust ports to ease the existing financial controls under which they currently operate to enable them to meet the challenges ahead in an increasingly competitive industry. There was a commitment to bring forward legislation "at the earliest opportunity". Those are the Department’s own words.
Both Warrenpoint and Londonderry, the two smaller ports, welcomed the announcement of that decision very much. Then, of course, as soon as the announcement had been made, there was a very interesting situation in Northern Ireland, when the Chancellor’s spending review was carried out in summer 1998. Members will recall the "additional" £150 million talked about, when we all wondered if that were really the case. The Chancellor made it very clear that the sale of Belfast port would raise £70 million and that the "additional" money would be drawn from this sum. He went on to say that the £70 million would have to be kept and that, regardless of how much was raised by the sale of Belfast port, Northern Ireland would get £70 million, with the British Exchequer getting the rest. He told us all that was a good deal for Belfast port.
Then came the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (Port of Belfast). I must pay tribute to the Members who served on that Committee, for they teased out a number of very interesting issues relating to the port. The report was very much driven by the Chancellor’s announcement and the issue of raising money for roads infrastructure, which was where the £70 million came in. Despite that, it was very interesting. In February 2000, after quite a gap, the Department for Regional Development produced an option paper for Belfast.
That paper contained three options — a private partnership; a modified partnership proposal; and, of course, a restructured trust port with extended powers — and it was presented to the Committee for Regional Development for its views. The Chairperson guided us through that difficult report, sometimes under difficult circumstances, and the Committee unanimously opted for a restructured trust port with extended powers.
As the Minister already knows, Londonderry and Warrenpoint ports have a number of significant development plans and some of these are being seriously examined. For example, the port in Londonderry has spent around £2 million on a new fish quay. There is also Fort George — a unique site, and probably one of the best sites to come on the property market in the city for a number of years. It is certainly one of the best economic and financial sites to come into the hands of the port commissioners — having been occupied for a number of years by the Army.
These developments, and many more, can only be taken forward properly with the extension of powers to trust ports in Northern Ireland. At present, what needs to be developed at Fort George, and other areas of the city, can be done meaningfully only if the port has the power to do the job. It can be done in a way that will help the harbour, put it on a strong financial footing, and help the entire city of Londonderry to regenerate. The port does not have that power at the moment. With the new powers, the ports would also be looking at financing these developments.
I am not taking anything away from Belfast or its port because it is one of the top six ports in the British Isles. It is a leading port within the European structure and it is developing. I see that port as helping to develop Belfast and the rest of the Province. The ports of Londonderry and Warrenpoint have two concerns if there is any great delay in resolving the outstanding issues in Belfast port, especially those relating to the land in and around the port. We all know that legal discussions about land can take some time to resolve. In the meantime, the two smaller ports have to wait.
Is there going to be a delay in giving those extended powers to the two smaller ports, which have trust port status, while the remaining outstanding issues in and around the whole issue of Belfast port are resolved?
Secondly, what are the outstanding issues regarding Belfast port? When are they likely to be resolved — either in the short or in the long term? Will it take one or two years? Warrenpoint, in particular, has a number of developments that it would like to get on with, and I have already mentioned the situation in Londonderry. What are the issues that need to be resolved, and when will they be resolved? The sooner we get answers to those questions, the better the opportunity for the two smaller ports to move forward. I would like to see the three ports getting their extended powers at the same time and getting the powers they need to operate more commercially and economically for their own area and for the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr Alban Maginness: This is a very timely debate. I thank the Members who proposed this motion — in particular, MrHay, who served on the Regional Development Committee and who has taken a keen interest, not just in his home port but also in the position of trust ports throughout Northern Ireland. He referred to them as potential engines for economic regeneration in their areas. I agree with that description. The development of the trust ports in those areas will be one way of regenerating local economies, which have suffered a great deal over the last 25 to 30 years. In Derry, where the economy has been slowly developing, the new port at Lisahally can help to revive that local economy.
The Minister for Regional Development, who is from that area, firmly believes that it is an engine for regeneration, not because of any selfish local or constituency interests, but because he realises, as do all of us on the Regional Development Committee, that the development of the trust ports will provide great economic opportunity. However, we have to do it properly and carefully. One of the problems we have to face is the fact that the trust ports have been hampered and hidebound to some extent in that they do not have the powers that are necessary to operate as commercially as they could do within the open market.
As an Assembly we have to give them the power, the economic muscle and the commercial flexibility necessary to develop their ports as competitive businesses in the open market. Port business is very competitive. Ports situated in Northern Ireland are not insulated from fierce competition from across the water or across the border. Mr Hay has rightly pointed out to the House that the powers of ports in the Irish Republic have been extended. The trust ports there operate almost as private companies. That is a lesson that we can learn. If we are to develop a competitive economy we must give our ports the wherewithal to compete in the market place.
I can understand the degree of fear or concern that Northern Ireland’s smaller ports have in relation to the development of the port of Belfast. However, I do not believe that the extension of powers will create an unfair competitive situation for the ports of Derry and Warrenpoint. I believe that they both have their own particular strengths that can be built upon if powers are extended. In the case of Derry, it has proved that it has a niche market. I do not think that it will be affected by the extension of powers to the port of Belfast. However, if the smaller ports’ powers are extended, the powers of the port of Belfast must be extended too.
In particular, I want to address the situation in Belfast. The uncertainty that has been created in relation to the future of the Port of Belfast has tended to blight the development of that port and the others. It had cast a cloud over the proper formulation and delineation of policy by the Department in relation to the development of ports. I am hopeful — I am sure that other members of the Committee for Regional Development share this view — that we will soon come to a conclusion on the future of the Port of Belfast. As Chairperson of that Committee — and I think I reflect the views of other members — I would like to see the extension of powers for the Port of Belfast. That is as far as I will go until the Committee and I hear the substance of the economic appraisal that the Department has carried out on the restructuring of the trust port of Belfast and the extension of powers thereto. It would be wrong for us to come to the Assembly with a predetermined view.
I say to the Assembly, to the public and, in particular, to the Port of Belfast, that we want to see the port operating successfully. We want the port to be highly competitive. We want to give the port the commercial and economic powers that it deserves. I believe that that reflects the collective view of the Regional Development Committee. We will argue the toss about the detail, but our collective view is that we want to see the Port of Belfast develop properly again as an engine of economic regeneration.
No doubt we will return to the Assembly in the near future with legislation and on the issue of developing policy for Belfast as a whole. I know that the Minister has already indicated in correspondence that his Department hopes to deal with the extension of powers in three phases. I welcome that, because it brings an element of certainty and focus to the whole trust ports debate.
In the first phase, he hopes to give some additional powers to the various trust ports in Northern Ireland under the harbour orders. I welcome that also. In the second phase, which will be much more difficult, he will bring primary legislation to the House in order to shape and restructure the ports. We await that legislation eagerly. We are prepared to work constructively with the Minister for the betterment of all the ports in Northern Ireland.
A price has to be paid by the trust ports for the extension of their powers. That price is greater public accountability, for trust ports are not in the public sector per se. They are a hybrid — neither private nor public, but somewhere in between. There must be increased public accountability. That will be the price paid by the trust ports for the extension of their powers.
There is ever-increasing competition from the Republic of Ireland, which is not necessarily bad, but if our ports are to meet that competition we have to give them the additional powers that they seek — powers which I believe we collectively want to grant them.
There are also three smaller ports at Coleraine, Donaghadee and Carlingford Lough, and it is important that we address those ports as well, and see how we can assist them. I do not think that legislation is necessary, but we must seek to enhance their position because they form an additional element of the port structure in Northern Ireland.
This is a welcome debate that prefigures a very thorough and perhaps radical examination of the future of our ports. A very important service is being done in this Assembly today by bringing attention to this issue and forewarning Members that we will have to make policy and legislative decisions on the future of our ports. I believe that those decisions will be made in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and in the individual and collective interests of the ports.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. The shipping industry in Northern Ireland has been of great interest to me for many years, and I recognise the major economic importance of our ports. Our ports are a lifeline for us. Because of our peripherality, they are vitally important. Therefore the interests of the ports are the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
In May 1998 the then Department of the Environment completed its review of trust ports in Northern Ireland. I made a submission on behalf of the Alliance Party at that time. Regrettably, when the Ad Hoc Committee investigated the issue, the then Minister, Lord Dubs, refused to provide the Assembly with a copy of the review. I hope that the Minister for Regional Development will not deny us access to it.
It was always believed that if privatisation — which was the original intention — did not go through, trust port powers would be extended to the ports of Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint. I regret that the work recommended in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee was not carried out. The reason for that was that it was not known whether or not the golden share would be legal under European law. That is understandable, and the Committee recognised that it might create a problem. That problem was always hanging over the Committee. The correct decision has been made. Trust powers should be extended; there is no other choice now.
There is a concentration on the interests of the trust ports. It would be remiss of me, as a representative of East Antrim, not to express concern that what happens with the port of Belfast, in particular, should not endanger the interests of the port of Larne, which is a private port. In recent months Stena has decided to relocate its conventional roll-on/roll-off ferries to Larne for the Stranraer route. That shows that while Belfast has a niche, Larne, as a roll-on/roll-off port, also has an important part to play in Northern Ireland’s economy.
I am also concerned about the demise of the small commercial harbours, particularly Carrickfergus. I spent a long time trying to protect the interests of that port. It provided competition to Belfast, as its rates were lower. Therefore it brought competition. The port of Bangor has also closed and the port of Coleraine is on its last legs. At present, it is only dealing with a number of cargoes of scrap. Its future remains in the balance. Competition in Northern Ireland is reduced by the closure and disappearance of the other smaller ports.
All Members agree that the major asset of the Port of Belfast is land. It is vital that what the Assembly agrees is in the best economic interests of not only the people of Belfast but also the people of Northern Ireland. Harland & Wolff has designated an area of land for special development. Titanic Quarter will provide great opportunities for Belfast to create a major waterfront development. Northern Ireland’s science park will be located there.
There is substantial interest, both in Northern Ireland and overseas, in the development of that site. There will be a full waterfront development, from the Odyssey to the ‘Titanic’ slipways. I watched a television documentary on Sunday about the ‘Titanic’ and the artefacts that have been recovered from it. The documentary concluded that Belfast should be the location for the display of those artefacts. That gives some encouragement to people like myself who support the development of maritime heritage in the Belfast area. In dealing with the question of extended trust powers we must look at the assets of Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
I was flabbergasted by last week’s decision to overturn the payment of compensation to Harland & Wolff. I must question Global Marine’s motivation in trying to bring about the demise of Harland & Wolff in Belfast. We are aware of Global Marine’s activities in other parts of the world, and that must bring into question the company’s very integrity. Wearing my enterprise, trade and investment hat, I sincerely hope that we can overcome those difficulties. The shipyard is a very integral and important part of the Belfast harbour site.
It is important for the Minister to take on board that there are a number of interests there, not just the Belfast Harbour Commissioners but also Belfast City Council, for example. I hope that all those interests are taken on board when plans come forward from the Department for Regional Development.
I am delighted to see MrRoche here continuing his interest in Belfast harbour. Members may recall that he was a very active member of the Ad Hoc Committee, and he served on it with Sinn Féin. In fact, he chaired a meeting, and SinnFéin members were present. Perhaps is a good sign that MrRoche and his party members are here today. Maybe it is a sign that there is a realisation that if we are to have an inclusive and collective approach to important issues such as this they will have to take their responsibilities on board.
The trends in shipping are changing very much at the present time. As the Chairman of the Committee has stated, it is important for the ports to develop their own niche. I am delighted to see a growing number of cruise ships now visiting Lisahally port. There are other opportunities for development, and in Londonderry land is also the major asset. It is important that that is developed in the best interests of the people in the city.
There is urgency about reaching a decision on the Port of Belfast and also the other ports. I urge the Minister to recognise that.
With regard to the recommendations that will be coming forward soon, there is a recognition in Belfast, Londonderry and Warrenpoint that elected representatives must have an input so that these organisations are accountable. They may be autonomous, but by the same token elected representatives should have an input.
I will say no more than that, except once again to thank Mr Hay and his Colleagues for bringing the report forward. I look forward to the responses from the Minister, as there is an urgency to resolve this issue.

Mr Patrick Roche: The key issue in the forthcoming legislation referred to in the motion is the future status of the Belfast port and how this might affect the other Northern Ireland ports.
In theory, there are two options available for the Port of Belfast, and they are set out in the Department for Regional Development’s option paper of February 2000. The first is privatisation, and the second is that it be made a restructured trust port with extended powers. Although Belfast Harbour Commissioners have withdrawn their privatisation proposal, it is worth looking at this option in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the restructured trust port with extended powers option.
Both of these options should be considered against the background of the economic performance of the Belfast port during the 1990s. The key feature in the economic performance of the port during that time was the raised level of after-tax profit connected to capital expenditure of about £150 million. The after-tax profit seemed to have reached something of a plateau from the mid-1990s, and there cannot be an expectation of £75 million from the EU in the future. These considerations raised the crucial issue of how we will ensure the continued growth and commercial competitiveness of the Port of Belfast.
The Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ response was to produce their proposals for the commercial privatisation of the port on the basis of a public-private partnership (PPP). Their core argument was that the PPP proposal would provide the port with greater commercial freedom and with crucial access to equity capital. The details of these proposals were submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on 30 March 1999. The Ad Hoc Committee reported on 22 July 1999, concluding that the transfer of the port to the private sector by means of flotation on the stock market was the best way forward while retaining the harbour estate in public ownership. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners responded with what has been termed an enhanced PPP proposal on 2 February 2000.
The key issues at stake in these proposals can be stated clearly without going into the minutiae of the proposals themselves. The proposals conceded the principle of privatisation as the best way of securing commercial freedom and of getting adequate access to financial capital. The proposals also recognised that privatisation would give rise to two fundamental problems.

Mr Alban Maginness: Essentially, the Member is referring to the development of a privatisation policy in relation to the Port of Belfast. There are currently a few problems with that. First, the stock market does not favour the disposal of that type of asset. The type of finance that one could raise would be fairly limited and would come from the harbour commissioners. Secondly, there is the question of the golden share, which was supposed to guarantee the future of the harbour. That golden share has, in fact, been shown to be so ineffective that it is now redundant. The Port of Belfast would therefore be open to a predatory takeover, as have some of the other British ports.

Mr Patrick Roche: I was outlining some of the main features of the privatisation proposal, in the context of considering and assessing the second option of Belfast’s being made a restructured port with extended powers. I will be dealing with most of the points you have mentioned.
The proposals recognise that privatisation would give rise to two fundamental problems. First, how can we create a safeguard against predatory takeover and thus protect local ownership of the port in the event of privatisation? Secondly, how can we create a safeguard against the speculative use of the landbank — by which I mean use of the landbank that would not contribute to economic activity in Northern Ireland? The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that, almost certainly, the port could not be successfully floated without the rental income. PricewaterhouseCoopers identified that matter in their options assessment as one of the basic weaknesses in the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.
The issues connected with privatisation were never successfully resolved. Leaving aside the problems associated with the use of a golden share to prevent a predatory takeover, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the basic reason why the problems of privatisation were not satisfactorily resolved was that, on the part of the Assembly, the will to do so did not exist. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended privatisation because, at the time, it seemed to be the only way to secure the £70 million for infrastructural development included in the Chancellor’s statement of May 1998, not because of any commitment to privatisation per se.
The alternative to some form of privatisation is a restructured port with extended powers. That is option D in the Department for Regional Development’s paper dated 4 February 2000. It is the favoured option of the Regional Development Committee and, almost certainly, the option that, subject to appraisal, will be included in the legislation.
There are two basic problems with the public ownership option. First, it is almost certainly the case that the extended powers option could not match privatisation in terms of commercial freedom and access to financial capital. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about what is involved in the restructuring. To some extent, restructuring means the appropriation by the Government of the assets of the port as a means of raising revenue. Legislation could — I am not saying that it will — give the Government access to the cash reserves held by Belfast Harbour Commissioners, which represent about £21·8 million. Legislation could also transfer all or a portion of the non-port lands to an existing or new public body to generate Government revenue from the lease of such lands.
A restructured port with extended powers could represent the worst case option for two basic reasons. The option can not match privatisation in terms of commercial freedom and access to financial capital. Perhaps that should not be overstated, for the Belfast Harbour Commissioners now consider that, on such issues, the choice between privatisation and option D is marginal. That is at least debatable. More importantly, the restructuring option could degenerate into nothing more commendable than asset-stripping by the Government to meet the demand for expenditure on the institutions established by the Belfast Agreement. It is already apparent that the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement are devouring millions of pounds without any proper — [Interruption] Do you find that amusing, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please continue. What I find amusing or not amusing is none of your business.

Mr Patrick Roche: That too is a debatable point.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member should sit when I am on my feet. What I find amusing or not amusing in this House is not a debatable point. The Member should bear that in mind.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is permissible for people to smile?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Mr Patrick Roche: It is another political stunt.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Patrick Roche: I was not addressing you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Already the — [Interruption]

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will not take any further points of order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is it in order for the Member to address anyone other than through the Chair?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member is quite correct.

Mr Patrick Roche: It is already apparent that the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement are devouring millions of pounds, without any proper economic appraisal of the opportunity cost of this political use of taxpayers’ money. The legislation must not restructure the port in a manner that would effectively deprive it of the financial resources to sustain competitive commercial activity. That would ultimately create the conditions for Dublin to emerge as the dominant port on the island. That crucial consideration is reinforced by the fact that it is almost certainly the case that the Treasury would offset any revenue flows to Stormont resulting from restructuring.
Finally, it seems to me that a socialist mindset or ethos informs the wording of the motion. The idea that the Government could safeguard the future of the Northern Ireland trust ports is simply economic nonsense. The proper role for the Government is to contribute as far as possible to an open and level competitive playing field, within which it is up to the port’s management and employees to safeguard the future of these crucial commercial enterprises. There is only one way to do this: by effectively competing in the market place. The Government must develop the option best suited to that fundamental commercial objective.
Mr Neeson intruded a political point into what, as I say, is an economic argument. The position of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party is absolutely straightforward. We will not participate in any Committees established to implement the Belfast Agreement. As for the Ad Hoc Committee, which was established to consider privatisation proposals for the Belfast port, once Sinn Féin was admitted to Government without decommissioning we drew the line at even participating in such a Committee —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Roche, please speak to the motion.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that you did not bring Mr Neeson to book when he departed from the issue. It is unfair of you to bring my Colleague to order for departing from the motion when the matter was raised by Mr Neeson.

Mr P J Bradley: I thank Mr Hay for introducing this timely motion. No doubt it will be welcomed in areas of the north-west and south-east. I would have been happier if the phrase "extension of trust status" had been included in the wording. However, I am satisfied that this requirement is the intention of the proposer. It goes without saying that I would be twice as content if the word "Warrenpoint" were included — but that is for another day.
Coming from Warrenpoint, I bring to the Assembly the concerns often expressed regarding the long-term future of the port there. I am speaking of a wide and varied section of people from the area, and further afield, who directly or indirectly earn a living from port-related employment. The success of Warrenpoint port is something that we are all very proud of in South Down. We look forward to the continuation of the important role that the port plays in the regional development of the area.
Warrenpoint is situated more or less halfway between the two largest ports in Ireland — namely, Dublin and Belfast. It will remain under constant pressure from the competition created in those larger ports, but there can be no complaint about that. The ports of Greenore and Drogheda are also growing, and that will create even more shipping competition along the eastern seaboard. However, the current problems are business-related. The custodians of our trust ports have adequately dealt with these situations in the past and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so in the future, provided that the level of support that they require from Government is urgently legislated for. I endorse the demand by the proposers of this motion that the Minister for Regional Development take the appropriate steps to safeguard the future of the trust ports in Northern Ireland.
I mentioned earlier the ongoing development of Belfast and other ports. It is the Minister’s obligation that the Belfast port is not offered any unfair advantages at the expense of the smaller ports. I too served on the Ad Hoc Committee dealing with the future of the Belfast port. I agree with the Chairman’s reminder that the Committee recommended that trust ports be given extended powers, and I recognise the danger for smaller ports if the port of Belfast were given any unfair business advantage in the future.
If the Minister and his officials support the Ad Hoc Committee’s view, the views of those heard here today and the anticipated views of those yet to speak, concerning our small ports we can feel reasonably assured that those in a position of responsibility will never lose sight of the important role played by our regional ports.
I agree with Mr Hay that the smaller ports anxiously await the implementation of extended powers. That could, and should, be done despite the fact that the situation in Belfast remains unresolved. I support the motion, and I thank Mr Hay for bringing it to the Assembly.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The motion is timely. I wish Mr Roche would not leave, for I will want to say a word or two about him. Perhaps he will read it in Hansard. I would have liked to provoke him, but — ah well. I will do it in his absence anyway. I should have said so before he got past the door.
This issue has dragged on for some time. It is important that we reach a resolution for a number of reasons. The port of Belfast and the other ports mentioned earlier are important to local economies in the hinterland they serve. The present degree of uncertainty has been perpetuated because of difficulties in Belfast rather than in Londonderry, Warrenpoint and other such places in Northern Ireland.
It is important that we resolve the issue. I served on the Ad Hoc Committee, and it was made clear to the Committee that to safeguard trust ports in Northern Ireland it would be essential that they be given flexibility to deal in activities other than strictly the handling of cargo from ships. They would need the ability to diversify. The ports would also need to have much more financial freedom than at present. Under trust port status, it would not be possible for them to go into the market and borrow money.
Many suggestions were made as to how ports could obtain those powers. We have not yet reached the point where we can fully address those issues. That is an important point. The Minister must bring forward proposals fairly soon so that those issues can be addressed.
The wave of goodwill towards the requirements of a successful port ought not to hide the fact that trust ports have behaved in a way that is not advantageous to citizens in the areas that they are placed. Trust ports are autonomous bodies. They are not accountable to anybody. The commissioners are accountable only to themselves. It is true that the Harbour Commissioners in Belfast have run the port effectively and profitably. They have modernised it, and they have changed its emphasis by their hard work to get tour ships to come to Belfast.
We must recognise that they have looked for new business opportunities. They have changed with the times. Nevertheless, there have been occasions when I believe that the unaccountable nature of trust ports has been disadvantageous. Decisions have been taken that have been detrimental to the city of Belfast and that have been opposed by nearly all the opinion-makers in Belfast.
I am thinking particularly of the D5 proposal. The council, Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce, the traders on arterial routes and even those concerned with planning policy were opposed to what they were doing. Their own harbour plan was opposed to what they were doing, yet they went ahead. They flew in the face of all those groups and pushed through something that happened to suit them because it fattened their balance sheet in the run-up to what they thought was going to be privatisation.
Regardless of what comes out of the Department, a situation like that should never be permitted again. There has to be accountability. Alban Maginness was right about that. What is to be done? We need to divorce the operation of the port from the scope — especially in Belfast — for the port or the Belfast Harbour Commissioners simply to act as developers. I do not believe that non-port-related land is essential to the successful operation of the port. I know that there are people in the Department who do not believe that. When the Ad Hoc Committee was taking evidence we sometimes wondered whether we were receiving evidence from the Department or from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, because their interests seemed to coincide so often.
I certainly do not believe the nonsense that we heard from Paddy Roche a moment ago. I want to emphasise Sean Neeson’s point. Mr Roche and his party participated in a Committee of this Assembly before getting a belated bout of political conscience about it. It is interesting to see that, despite despising the great Satan, as epitomised by the Committees, Mr Roche has taken avid interest in the Regional Development Committee. He was able to quote liberally from its proceedings, reports and discussions. Perhaps his detached attitude towards the Committees shows that he has not been totally converted to the view that participation in Committees is such a bad idea.
He said that the port could not possibly operate commercially unless it had the rental income from the non-port land and the assets contained in that land. He went on to say that to take that land away would be tantamount to asset-stripping, as part of a great conspiracy to make the port less able to compete with Dublin, so that we could have all-Ireland transport links. People accuse me of being paranoid and seeing conspiracies around every corner. That is one of the greatest and most outlandish conspiracy theories I have ever heard. It may well be that he has fallen under the spell of those in the Belfast Harbour Commission who would love that kind of nonsense to be believed.
The fact is that there is a port with assets of over £150 million. It has, more or less, a monopoly position — 60% of the trade in Northern Ireland, with an even higher percentage of the passenger trade.
It has profits of £8 million per year; a return of about 40% on turnover. Mr Roche is an economist, and he is telling us that a business with that kind of performance could not possibly raise money and would not be able to borrow money on the open market if the port were not given another thousand acres of development land. That does stretch credibility.
Mr Roche’s explanation of why his party does not participate in Committees also stretches credibility — but this stretches it even further. One might believe his excuse for not participating in Committees if that were not put alongside the kind of fairy story he wants us to believe in relation to the port of Belfast and its ability to raise money.
The one issue that must be addressed is that non-port- related land cannot be left in the hands of a body not accountable to the Government and only accountable to itself. That is a not a commercial or economical pre- requisite for the successful running of the port in the future.
PricewaterhouseCoopers said something similar in their assessment. I know, from my involvement in Belfast City Council, that if you want consultants to give you a report which suits a certain outcome, you tell them the parameters you want them to work within at the start. All such reports must be viewed in that light. We should not leave objectivity aside when we look at reports, whether they are generated by the Assembly or by outside consultants. They always come with that health warning. Those are the issues the Minister and the Department must address when bringing forward a scheme to the Assembly.
The Assembly has given clear direction on two occasions: through the Ad Hoc Committee, and through the Regional Development Committee. On both occasions the message I am giving today has come clearly from those Committees: port activities must be divorced from non-port activities. Whether it be the option for a restructured port with extended powers or the Ad Hoc Committee’s report, there has been an indication given on both occasions that the non-port related land should not be part of whatever structure is introduced for the port in future.
If you want real accountability for an important swath of development land in the heart of Belfast, that should be given to the one body which is elected on a four-year basis and which does have public accountability. Belfast City Council, through running two major industrial estates and by developing the gas works site and St George’s Market in the heart of Belfast, has a proven track record.
The development of the non-port related land is one aspect that the Committee and the Minister ought to be considering when looking at the future of an important asset in the centre of the city.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate Mr Hay and Mr Wells for moving this motion. The spirit of the motion is very much in line with the general thinking of the Assembly and certainly with that of the Regional Development Committee in that there is a desire to have extended trust port status for existing Northern Ireland trust ports.
As someone who lives in County Tyrone, I am concerned about the Derry port, as is Mr Hay. I see Derry port as a regional port, which serves the whole of the north-west of Ireland. If it had extended trust port powers, it would be in a better position to develop and contribute to greater economic development in the Derry city area.
Larne port is owned by a private company and is therefore largely in charge of its destiny. We can do little about that. Warrenpoint, like Derry, has a smaller port, and the harbour commissioners and the port users there would like extended trust port status so that the port could develop in the future and provide a greater range of services. Both Derry and Warrenpoint are, as Mr Maginness said earlier, niche ports serving local hinterlands — the north-west in Derry’s case, and the south-east part of Northern Ireland in the case of Warrenpoint.
The future of the Belfast port is very much in question. As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on that future, I agreed with the general sentiment that it is a large public asset in the heart of Belfast. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners have been very successful in the way in which they have managed the port and developed it over many years. There is a very large asset base, and industrial zones are attached to it on both the County Antrim and County Down sides. It therefore earns a good deal in rental income from that commercial land asset.
I am largely in agreement with Sammy Wilson that Belfast port and its harbour commissioners have a great deal of power and assets at the moment. We should congratulate them on how they have managed the port. They have accumulated cash reserves of at least £30 million, and the port is currently making £8 million profit annually. They should not be punished for that but we, as an Assembly, have a public remit on the future of that port. The associated lands in the Belfast harbour estate could be used for the wider development of Belfast on behalf of all of the people of Northern Ireland.
I am aware that people in Derry and Warrenpoint would be concerned about Belfast port’s ability to offer keener prices and to engage in what is called predatory pricing if it were to have the luxury of enjoying all the rental income from the commercial properties. That would be unfair competition against Derry port and Warrenpoint. The Minister needs to consider that, when he considers the future arrangements for Belfast.
Ideally, we will bring forward legislation as soon as possible to enable Derry and Warrenpoint to proceed with development through extended trust port status. The development of the Belfast port will take more time, and we should not be rushed unnecessarily. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the port are not suffering unduly because of the delay, and it is important that we properly plan for the port’s future. Belfast port is largely a municipally owned facility and Belfast Harbour Commissioners are expected to hold that in trust for all the people of Northern Ireland. I am in favour of a requirement for greater accountability from the harbour commissioners of Derry and Warrenpoint and, I hope, for the Port of Belfast too.
I strongly believe in balanced regional development across Northern Ireland. It is therefore very important that all of these commercial ports are enabled to continue to serve their hinterlands and to contribute, as Mr Wilson said, to local economic development.
I congratulate the management and the harbour commissioners in Derry for the way in which they have expanded their facilities in recent times. Most recently, they have opened a wharf for fish processing, which should prove very successful. Secondly, they have developed a cruiser ship business, which has the potential to be very beneficial to the tourist industry in the north-west. In recent times, cruiser ships have also been operating in Belfast harbour, which is a very welcome development. It is important that the Minister come forward with the legislation to extend trust port status for Derry and Warrenpoint as soon as possible. It is also important that we deal with the Port of Belfast as quickly as possible.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have listened with interest to Members’ views on this subject. Before addressing the issues which have been raised, I will make a number of points to allay the concerns expressed about the interests of the smaller ports and Belfast harbour.
First, my Department’s legislative proposals for trust ports are still at a preliminary stage. I have only recently written to the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee to outline the proposed legislative programme which, I envisage, will extend over a number of years. The overall aim is to modernise our harbour legislation to better equip trust ports to compete and to meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive and fast changing industry. In seeking to do this, my intention is to widen their commercial powers and to ease the financial controls under which they are currently required to operate. At the same time, there is a strong case for taking steps to improve their public accountability — and I note the frequency with which that issue was raised during the debate.
In advancing this work and introducing legislative change, I want to maintain a level playing field, insofar as it is possible. In this context, while I recognise the considerable contribution which Belfast harbour makes to the local economy, I am equally keen to encourage the development of the smaller commercial trust ports of Warrenpoint, Londonderry, Coleraine and Larne. Each port has a unique role to play within the ports industry in Northern Ireland, and I am personally committed to doing what I can to enable them to realise their full potential.
No decision has yet been made on the future of Belfast harbour. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on an economic appraisal of the various options under consideration is due to be published tomorrow. I have arranged for a presentation on the report’s findings to be made to the Regional Development Committee, and I await that Committee’s views before coming to a final decision on this important matter.
At a meeting with the Regional Development Committee earlier this month, I did, however, indicate that, for a number of reasons, I do not believe that the time is right to pursue the public/private partnership (PPP) option further. The market conditions are not conducive to a successful floatation. There is considerable political opposition on a local level to privatisation, and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have recently withdrawn their PPP option in favour of the alternative option of a trust port with extended powers. During the summer the Regional Development Committee announced that it was looking favourably at the alternative option for Belfast harbour of a restructured port with extended powers. I have indicated to the Committee that, in principle, I agree with it on this matter.
The publication tomorrow of the report on the economic appraisal will obviously inform the considerations of the Committee and myself on this matter. However, much uncertainty still surrounds a number of aspects, not least the public expenditure treatment of any proceeds under the various options and the future classification of trust ports for public expenditure purposes, both here and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
For this reason, if restructuring proves to be the way forward for the Port of Belfast, it should be undertaken in a measured way. I have explained to Committee members that subject to their views, and taking into account the views of others, a phased approach would be sensible. Phase one would entail drafting suitable enabling legislation to permit the restructuring of the harbour estate. On the basis of the findings of the economic appraisal, I would see this mainly centring on the Harland & Wolff and Shorts core lands. Phase two would give effect to any restructuring and involve the transfer to the Government of the lands in question. This would obviously be influenced by advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel on the public expenditure implications of any associated rental income or any proceeds resulting from subsequent renegotiations of existing leases. The third phase would entail a periodic review of the PPP option.
I am reluctant to put a precise time scale on this. Clearly, much would depend on changing circumstances and on the market conditions prevailing at the time. As I have already said, greater public accountability will be a feature of my Department’s legislative proposals, and this will apply to all of Northern Ireland’s trust ports. I am strongly of the view that the granting of wider commercial powers for trust ports brings with it increased responsibility and the need to become more publicly accountable.
Once the future of Belfast harbour has been finally determined, and in advance of the necessary legislation’s being put in place we could agree with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they undertake to consult with me on any plans for significant change in land use or planned disposal or reletting of harbour lands. In any event, I foresee a need for the harbour legislation to place a statutory duty on all trust ports to seek the approval of the Department in future for any of the circumstances to which I have referred. At the same time, I propose that the Assembly take a reserved power of direction to ensure that the public interest is fully safeguarded against their activities. Apart from this, I do not foresee the eventual decision on the future of the Port of Belfast having any material effect on the smaller trust ports. This of course assumes that the future of the Port of Belfast lies in the public sector for the time being, and I expect that to be so.
In conclusion, I wish to deal very briefly with some of the issues raised by Members in the course of the debate. Initially there was a query from Mr Hay regarding the extension of powers for the smaller ports holding up decisions that may pertain to them. The extended powers of the smaller ports will not be held up by the determining of the future of the Belfast port. I would like to reassure all of the smaller ports on that.
Mr Maginness raised the issue of extended powers for the smaller ports. I assure him that the Department intends to offer those ports the benefit of extended powers where appropriate.
Mr Neeson raised the review undertaken by a previous Minister. Unfortunately there is a convention whereby a report that was issued by a previous Administration is not available to subsequent Ministers. I am afraid that that covers Mr Neeson’s point.
Mr Neeson also referred to Harland & Wolff and the Global Marine compensation issue. Of course, I have considerable sympathy with Harland & Wolff, but that is a matter for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Department.
Mr Roche raised the matter of asset-stripping and the restructuring of the port. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to wait until tomorrow and the outcome of the economic appraisal. He also raised the issue of extended powers under restructuring not being able to match commercial freedom under privatisation. This may well be true, but I have already referred not only to the wider commercial freedom that extended powers will give but also to the fact that in a very critical area there are benefits from the extended powers option, in that it would increase the degree of public accountability that privatisation would not.
Mr Roche also referred to asset-stripping to raise proceeds. Another Member made similar comments, albeit in a somewhat bizarre fashion. Some of the lands under discussion have a major public interest dimension, so I do not see how this could be regarded as an asset-stripping exercise.
Mr Wilson raised the matter of public accountability. I hope that I have dealt with that comprehensively. He also referred to non-port-related land’s not being essential to the operation of the port. This will be covered in considerable detail in tomorrow’s economic appraisal, and members of the Regional Development Committee will have a full opportunity to deal with the issue.
I hope that I have dealt as fully as possible with the matters that Members have raised. I hope that, from what I have said, it is clear to Members that in advancing my legislative proposals, I am mindful of the interests of all Northern Ireland’s ports and harbours, regardless of whether they are in the public or the private sector or of whether they are large or small.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Mr William Hay: We have had a good, lively debate this afternoon, even if some people did go slightly off the mark. First, I have to thank the Minister for his commitments. It is important that we hear them in the House and for the Minister to assure us that it will be a level playing field, whether they be private ports, trust ports or smaller ports. He also made the important commitment that the new extended powers will not be held up.
I myself and the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee have made the point that the people involved see the business they can generate as being the engine of the economies of their areas, whether Belfast, Warrenpoint or Londonderry.
For a number of years, trust ports have wanted to become involved in other aspects of life in their areas. Sometimes there is a commercial venture in which they would like to get involved but find it difficult to do so at the time. Let us hope that when changes are made, trust ports throughout the Province will become catalysts of economic development and regeneration in their areas.
Another issue which featured strongly in the debate was the need for greater accountability. At present, there is little or no accountability in the structure of some trust ports. The extension of powers to trust ports’ powers will be accompanied by greater accountability. Some Members highlighted the need to do the job properly, and that is important. Trust ports are close to getting the extra powers they need to operate more commercially, and it is important that our Committee, the Minister, the Department for Regional Development and the Assembly get those powers right.
Much hard work has been done by the Department in recent years, and that work has been vital in bringing us to the present stage. I pay tribute to those civil servants who worked extremely hard on complex legislation that, it is hoped, we will have in the near future. I also commend the Minister on his commitment to resolving the serious outstanding issues pertaining to Belfast. I hope that in trust ports throughout Northern Ireland the commissioners will operate collectively and support the Minister and the Department in their moves to make progress on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the intention of the Minister for Regional Development to provide legislation regarding trust port status, and calls upon the Minister to safeguard the future of Northern Ireland trust ports, including Londonderry, and especially the smaller ports, which will be affected by the announcement concerning the port of Belfast.

Security Forces Personnel: Compensation

Sir John Gorman: The time allocated for this debate is two hours. I will call Mr Danny Kennedy to speak for 10 minutes, followed by Mr Paisley Jnr, who will speak for seven minutes, and Mrs Nelis, who will also speak for seven minutes. I have been notified of 14 Members who wish to take part. After those speeches I will give the mover of each amendment five minutes, and the proposer 10 minutes to wind up. That seems a fair allocation of time.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move
That this Assembly welcomes the announcement, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 7 November 2000, of payments to RUC widows and the fund for injured police officers, retired officers and their families; and calls on the Secretary of State to provide the same level of assistance to Army/UDR/RIR widows, injured Army/UDR/RIR personnel, retired Army/UDR/RIR personnel and their families.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Business Committee for allowing this motion to come forward. I hope that many Members will participate in this important debate, or at least listen and, I hope, better inform themselves on the issue.
I accept the amendment in the name of the Member for North Antrim, Mr Paisley Jnr, and with his permission will have it included in the main text of the motion. Like him, I wish to place on record my appreciation and recognition of the service and sacrifice of members of the Prison Service who have also borne the brunt of Republican and Loyalist terrorism over the past 30 years.
I am unwilling to accept the amendment proposed by Mrs Nelis. The purpose of my motion is to highlight the inequity of the current compensation system for members of the security services and their families. If the hon Lady wishes to pursue the sentiments expressed in her amendment, she can table a motion for consideration by this Assembly.
Members will be aware that, as part of the Patten Report on policing in Northern Ireland, the Government asked Mr John Steele to bring forward proposals to establish a fund to meet the needs of injured or retired RUC and RUC reserve officers, their families and widows. Mr Steele published his report at the end of October. I commend the report to the House and pay tribute to John Steele for beginning the enormous task of recognising the service and sacrifice of members of the RUC and the RUC reserve. I trust that the Secretary of State will speedily and fully implement the recommendations of the Steele Report.
After Mr Steele’s appointment, I received many representations concerning the omission of adequate compensation proposals for the many Army, Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) and Royal Irish Regiment (RIR) widows and families neglected over the years. Members will be aware that the security forces in my constituency of Newry and Armagh bore the brunt of a particularly vicious murder campaign by Republican terrorists. Many lives were cruelly taken, leaving young families devastated. I move this motion on their behalf, with the simple plea that the families of murdered or injured members of the security forces should be fairly treated.
Some Members might question why Army, UDR and RIR widows and families should receive the same compensation as members of the RUC or the RUC reserve. I strongly contend that attempting to differentiate the sacrifices of the security forces would be not only impossible but morally wrong. The bravery and sheer courage of the men and women of the security forces, who stood between this Province and anarchy, must never be forgotten and can never truly be repaid in monetary terms. The issue of proper recognition being afforded to security force victims over the past 30 years therefore arises.
In the process of preparing for today’s debate in the Assembly, I spoke to a number of UDR and RIR widows and close relatives. I found their stories to be a very humbling experience indeed, and the grief that they had suffered through the loss of their loved ones was in many ways compounded by the pain they felt as they struggled, in many cases alone, to provide for their families. It would appear to them that they are, and were, abandoned by successive Governments.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to share with the House the many cases brought to my attention. I shall, however, use one as an example to illustrate the urgent need for action on this issue. It is the case of a woman who struggled to bring up four young children after the cruel murder of her husband in 1973. He was a part-time member of the UDR who had joined to help serve his community and country, not for any great financial benefit or reward. His death robbed his wife and her family of a husband and father, the sole wage earner and provider for that home. The little compensation paid in those early days only made a small contribution towards getting the house finished which the man had been building for his family. Years of grief and struggle followed, with only the help and great support of relatives and friends to assist that lady and her young family.
It is little wonder that people who have endured an experience of that nature are sceptical and resentful of the actions of a so-called grateful Government. It is clear that proper help and assistance has not been provided in the past, but that is no reason why shameful treatment of the security forces should be allowed to go unchallenged. When one compares the settlements paid over many years to terrorists or prisoners to the amounts of compensation paid to security force victims, it is clear that a very great wrong has been practised which must urgently be redressed.
Members will be aware of the ongoing assistance and funding provided to ex-prisoner groups by such organisations as the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Extern, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland will contrast this level of assistance with the neglect felt by the families of members of the security forces.
It is also interesting to contrast the compensation given to the families of those members of the Garda Síochána who lost their lives in the Irish Republic with that given to widows of security force personnel killed in Northern Ireland. Settlements in the Republic appear to have been substantially more generous. Her Majesty’s Government should take careful note and apply the same criteria. I strongly believe that the Government have a bounden duty to provide proper compensation and ongoing financial support to the families of all security force personnel killed in Northern Ireland. I contend that the full range of security force services — the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the Army, the UDR, the RIR and prison officers — should be treated equally and with generosity.
In the light of the publication of the Steele Report, I believe that the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have the opportunity to address this great issue. Equally importantly, they have an opportunity to prove to the people of Northern Ireland that they truly value the service and sacrifices of the men and women of the security forces.
I look forward to this debate and trust that Members will conduct it in a respectful and responsible manner. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 6, after "personnel", insert
"injured Prison Service personnel, retired Prison Service personnel and widows of Prison Service personnel".
Last week this House remembered and respected, by the purchase of the poppy and its remembrance service, those people who sacrificed so much of their today so that we could have a tomorrow. It is unfortunate that an element in this community wishes to equate the so-called sacrifice of actual terrorists with the legitimate sacrifice of the state. I hope that during the course of this debate people who would attempt to make a political football of the issue of respect, recognition and remembrance will judge for themselves the disservice they are doing to the people who paid so much. I say that in all sincerity, in a week when we have people who want respect and recognition for certain sections of the community whenever those same people cannot condemn massive bomb findings in places like Derrylin.
Society will judge this House and politicians by how they treat the weak and vulnerable. We will be judged by society if we exclude from recognition, due respect and reward, those people who have sacrificed so much for this society. Like many, I am sceptical about the motivation behind the Government’s announcement for a cash reward for members of the RUC, widows and those injured who have been serving members of the RUC. At a time of insult to the RUC, that force suddenly gets the George Cross and compensation payment proposals. Those rewards are mediocre and are a belated recognition for what they have done. I welcome them — but with that caveat.
It is time that the RUC, the Army, the UDR, the Royal Irish Regiment and, as my amendment to the motion states, the Prison Service were given the reward, respect and recognition that they deserve. I am only amending Mr Kennedy’s motion because of that gap in it, and I am happy he has accepted my amendment. It was unintentional on his part. I have spoken to him about it, and I appreciate his accepting the amendment.
The Prison Service was employed to do a job under the most dangerous civil disturbances anywhere in Europe. They paid a price for that job, and we must reward them. The facts behind the Prison Service’s sacrifice are that during the troubles 29 prison officers were murdered for doing their job — murdered by both sections of the community. They were so-called legitimate targets by certain sections of the community when, in reality, they were pawns in an appalling game of politics that saw out the hunger strike, the dirty protests and numerous other attempts to demean that service. Twenty-nine out of a maximum service personnel of 3,000 is a very high proportion. Therefore I ask this House to recognise that they are due compensation for their sacrifice also.
Of course, there is the Northern Ireland Prison Service Central Benevolent Fund, which was established to assist ex-Prison Service personnel. I pay due recognition to that voluntary body — and it is a voluntary body. It was established in 1982, and, through voluntary contributions and voluntary work, it tries to provide a service to 200 widows and more than 700 retired staff. It draws entirely from voluntary contributions, and that is not enough. It cannot be expected, on a voluntary basis, and through voluntary contributions, to meet the demands placed upon it.
The resources that these people have are a pittance in comparison to other benevolent funds. They need resources, and they deserve them. We must insist that the Government put them on a proper footing so that education, training and retraining bursaries can be provided for ex-service personnel and the needs of widows can be made.
The RUC benevolent fund — a very good fund — provides holidays for certain widows. The Northern Ireland Prison Service Central Benevolent Fund attempts to offer the same service. It also provides holidays for widows, but, because of its lack of funds, applicants have to pay a reduced rate. It is not fair to ask someone who has gone through the same suffering and the same sacrifice to pay more for similar benefits. We are asking a voluntary scheme to foot a massive bill, and that is unjust. These people made sacrifices on behalf of the state. They made those sacrifices in order to protect everyone — not only the people in this Chamber but everyone represented by them, whether they like it or not.
The Prison Service must therefore be added to this motion, and I am glad that it will be. Mr Kennedy has decided to accept my amendment. I hope that the fundamental injustice suffered by Prison Service personnel will also be recognised, as has the failure of the Government in the past to recognise the RIR, the UDR and the police.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all the words after "Assembly" and add
"notes the statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 7 November 2000 regarding compensation payments and calls on him to provide the same level of assistance to all the victims, survivors and their families directly affected by the conflict here."
The motion before this House does not acknowledge that all victims, survivors and relatives of this long conflict are equal and should be treated equally. Instead, we have a motion that is nothing less than a squalid, sordid squabble among the agencies of the Crown and their camp followers to divide up the spoils of the illegal war declared by the British state on an Irish Nationalist population.
This motion should be seen for what it is, judging by the media reports and the list of amendments on behalf of the various agencies, as they all rushed to join Peter Mandelson’s gravy train. British forces on this island — the RUC, the UDR, the RIR — all knew, when they joined these state agencies, of the risks involved. They were well paid for fighting Britain’s dirty war in this country. The families of the civilians killed by those same forces did not know risks, but they are surely entitled at least to equality of treatment. It is entirely appropriate that our party table an amendment supporting the families and relatives of all victims of this conflict, rather than give any credibility to this motion.
The motion is nothing less than a sectarian exclusion order against the relatives of those murdered by the state. Our amendment notes the Secretary of State’s announcement regarding compensation payments and calls on him to provide the same level of assistance to all victims, survivors and their families who have been directly affected by the conflict.
Our party’s amendment acknowledges that, with regard to the loss of a loved one, all grief is the same. Such grief can never be compensated for by money or platitudes, nor can such monetary rewards acknowledge adequately the legacy of the past or help heal the wounds and divisions created by this conflict. This announcement by Peter Mandelson serves only to deepen divisions and put off for ever the need to reconcile those affected and afflicted by the trauma of the last 36 years. It legitimises some victims and demonises others. It reinforces the notion that the Secretary of State and the Minister are operating a hierarchy of victims, which was put in place, in the first instance, by the Bloomfield Report. Bloomfield’s selective recognition and Mandelson’s compensation awards to state agencies fail to recognise the hundreds of people murdered by those state agencies or the thousands injured — the vast majority of whom were Nationalists and Republicans. Peter Mandelson has failed utterly to understand or recognise the impact of his announcement on those families — the deep pain and hurt inflicted by his dismissal of Nationalist / Republican dead as having no significance. That is what his announcement really says.
However, it is not surprising that such an announcement indicates the sectarian and partisan nature of his stewardship and his amnesia over the RUC’s role in the murder of many Catholic Nationalists. Their pain is no less acute than that of others, but that pain is not acknowledged. They are not seeking awards, merely equal treatment. The victims and survivors of state violence have found that, despite the recommendations of the Good Friday Agreement, they are continually marginalised, discriminated against and left out of the equation entirely. Peter Mandelson’s golden handshake to the RUC has done nothing to lessen this perception. The league table of what constitutes a victim is measured by the Minister responsible for victims by the status of a person at the time of his death. It is further advanced by the unquestioning media. There is no doubt that in the minds of Mandelson and the motion’s proposer, the victims of state forces and state- sponsored violence are of no importance in the wider schemes and political machinations of a Government that signed up to an agreement which states
"it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation."
According to Relatives for Justice, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery today, there has been no official recognition for the families of those killed and injured by RUC violence — something that has been exacerbated by Mandelson’s refusal even to meet the relatives of those killed. Yesterday’s announcement of £200,000 — [Interruption].

Sir John Gorman: Order.

Ms Mary Nelis: May I continue.
Yesterday’s announcement of £200,000 for victims’ groups, as compared to £11 million for RUC relatives, is an insult to the dead, the injured and those trying to rebuild their lives. It should have been an equal and inclusive package designed to meet the needs of everyone affected by the conflict. Instead, the victims and survivors of state violence find themselves sidelined once again in the face of an announcement which makes conflict resolution more difficult than ever.

Mr Alban Maginness: We in the SDLP come to this issue in a spirit of reconciliation. We wish to play our part in healing our society’s wounds. We fully accept that the needs of those who suffered during the conflict merit greater attention and support. We can never be truly reconciled as a community until the victims of the troubles are reconciled with the rest of society. Unfortunately, the motion and the amendments tabled highlight the partisan and sectarian differences that exist and the failure of the body politic to reach an overall consensus on who is a victim of the troubles.
I regret the tone of the debate so far. I regret that it has been divisive and non-conciliatory. In particular, I regret the tone of Mrs Nelis, who was herself selective about the victims of the troubles.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Does the Member agree that the sad reflection on his party today is that over the past 30 years, when violence was being inflicted on the RUC and the security forces, his party was not able to bring itself to support the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland and instead played footsie with its Colleagues in Sinn Féin?

Mr Alban Maginness: In the SDLP we have maintained a balanced approach to the problem of conflict in our society, and I reject entirely the partisan remarks that the Member has made.
The motion and the amendments all attempt to be selective and to distinguish groups of people as the sole victims of violence. Therefore on one hand we have solely security force personnel as victims or on the other hand solely civilians as victims. When one starts to differentiate between victims, more problems are created because it is saying that some people, by virtue of their role in society, have suffered more than others. That is not acceptable.
In the SDLP we accept that people are victims if their lives have altered negatively because of the violence and division in our society resulting from the troubles. Essentially, we regard victims as self-defining, and in order to build a new agreed society to heal the wounds of the past, support should be available for all traumatised individuals according to need.
There is no monopoly on pain. The pain of an RUC widow is no different from the pain of the parent of a child killed by a plastic bullet. Orphaned children, whether they are the offspring of paramilitary or military fathers, still suffer the same pain of bereavement and separation. Their financial and material needs are still acute. The disappeared — the victims of kangaroo courts — are as much victims as those unjustly convicted and imprisoned by the regular courts. Whatever an individual’s circumstances, victims stand to gain more by recognising their common suffering than by focusing on their differences.
The Assembly would be better served by a more comprehensive motion that recognised the suffering of all victims of the troubles and asked for more assistance for all of them right across the board. I invite the proposer of this motion to withdraw it, as, indeed, those who submitted amendments should withdraw them. It would better serve the House if there were an all-embracing motion that considered the needs of all victims of violence in our community.
Let us engage in a process of healing the divisions within our society and help all those who have been victims. Let us recognise and publicly acknowledge their individual and collective suffering and let us move in that direction in this House. This motion and the amendments, whether intended to or not, are likely to create further divisions and suffering. Through them, we are in danger of ghettoising victims.
This debate, therefore, may extend rather than reduce the suffering of victims and encourage arguments about the right to victim status. We must ask ourselves what we are achieving today in this Assembly debate, which does not have the power to deliver positive change for the people for whom we speak. This motion and the amendments are merely procedural graffiti.

Mr Paul Berry: I rise to support the motion and also the amendment moved by my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr. I am sick of listening to the rhetoric of Sinn Féin/IRA representatives here today. It is worth pointing out that there would be no need for such a debate if the IRA had not murdered innocent members of the RUC, the UDR, the RIR, prison officers and Army personnel.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Member also accept that there would be no need to talk about the Catholic victims of the troubles had it not been for the IRA’s killing more Catholics than the Army, the UDR and the police put together?

Mr Paul Berry: I agree. It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy when Sinn Féin/IRA Members speak in the Chamber about victims. It is sickening that we have had to bring this debate to the Floor, but we had to because of the problems that RUC widows and the widows and families of members of the other security forces have faced over the past 30 years.
I welcome the compensation money that RUC widows are receiving. Sadly, it is too little, too late. The need for that money was greatest when the tragedy happened.
I recall a cold, wintry morning in February 1993 when a telephone call came through to our house at 5 o’clock and my family was told the tragic news that my uncle had been blown to pieces by the IRA. I can understand the grief and the pain because my family and I faced it. My aunt faced life without a husband, and my cousins faced life without a father, because of the cowardly actions of Sinn Féin/IRA. That is when they most needed the money. Sadly, the Government of that time did not provide sufficient money. Money was provided, but it was not enough. I understand the grief that all families go through, especially those of members of the security forces who have been taken from the community in such a cowardly way.
However, I fear that this is a cynical exercise by the Government. It cunningly disguises the fact that when the RUC and the UDR were facing terrorism head-on and there was no talk by the Government of appeasing Republicans, the officers and their families were treated with little generosity. Now, when the RUC is being lambasted by all and sundry, the Government feel that they have to offer something to those hit hard by the troubles. I fear that this is a patriotic recognition of the force that the Government, and some Unionists, want consigned to history. However, I welcome the compensation.
The motion says that money must also be allocated to families of murdered and injured UDR, RIR, prison service and Army members. They must all be recognised. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement of compensation money for RUC widows, the UDR widows, prison officer widows and others felt great pain and betrayal. That is why we are debating the matter. We demand that action be taken to ensure that the loved ones of everyone in the security forces who had their lives so tragically taken from them be recognised and awarded compensation.
I am meeting the Secretary of State this Friday, and I will press for equal recognition for UDR widows, prison officers’ widows and Army widows. The sacrifice of the widows who endured the heartache of losing their partners to ruthless murderers must be fully recognised. We cannot allow half-hearted compensation payments by the Government; nor should the compensation be sold as a sugar-coated stone to the forgotten victims.
Between 1970 and 1998, 315 people were murdered in County Armagh by the Republican movement. The Assembly would not be discussing victims, RUC officers and their wives and families, or compensation had the IRA not murdered those people. The IRA has wasted the money and has destroyed family circles over the years, so shame on it. The Government must act immediately to show recognition of all security force families.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom aontú leis an mhéid atá ráite cheana féin ag Mary Nelis. Is é an teachtaireacht atá agam go bhfuil gach duine sa tsochaí seo cothrom: tá siad cothrom sa tsaol agus tá siad cothrom sa bhás.
I support Mary Nelis’s amendment, which seeks to emphasise that all victims, survivors and relatives are equal with regard to the suffering and grief brought about by the conflict. There is no hierarchy of victims; no one is more equal than others, in spite of what the British Secretary of State may say. AlbanMaginness wants to have that equality acknowledged. MrsNelis’s amendment meets that desire, and therefore I anticipate Mr Maginness’s support for it.
I find it difficult to accept that MrPaisleyJnr is sincere and that he is not trying to use this vexed issue as a political football. Victims of the British State and British death squads are not included in his amendment, nor are the civilians killed by any of the protagonists to the conflict.
It is difficult for any of us to detach ourselves from our political standpoint and the experiences of our communities. I speak as someone whose community has suffered tremendously at the hands of the British Army, the RUC, the UDR, the RIR, the B-Specials, and the Black and Tans. I am a Member of the Tyrone National Graves Association, the function of which is to foster respect for Ireland’s patriot dead. I do not apologise for that for one second, but we must try to detach ourselves from the political context. I have here a little booklet that give details of the Ulster Defence Regiment’s record of violence against the Nationalist community, but, in the spirit of the debate, I cast it to one side.
The voice of the victims of British State violence is seldom heard. In particular, it is seldom heard on our broadcast media, in UTV and BBC programmes. Nobody went to the home of AidanMcAnespie in Aughnacloy to analyse the family’s feelings and listen to their suffering after Aidan was killed by the British Army on his way to a GAA match. I could speak at great length on such matters. I will not make light of anyone’s suffering — everyone’s suffering is equal. The amendment put down by MrsNelis serves us well.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I support Mr Paisley Jnr’s amendment. As someone who was incarcerated for 16years and whose human rights and right to equality suffered at the hands of some prison officers, I still believe that we need to recognise that they were part of this.
I am concerned that MrsNelis’s amendment does not fit in with this debate. The subject should stand on its own. We would be doing an injustice to the victims of state violence if we were to discuss it now. I have heard people say that they were mostly Republicans. It does not matter whether there was state violence against only one Loyalist or two, there was still state violence against Loyalists. That debate needs to happen, but not as an amendment tagged on to a motion concerning the security forces. The matter should be debated in its own right.
With regard to compensation payments to the Prison Service, I accept that those people did serve. Their families sat at home wondering whether they would return, just as the families of members of the RUC, the UDR and other people did. They had to go through the daily security routine of closing their doors, looking through cameras and checking under their cars for bombs. The threat was not just from Republicans, it was from Loyalists as well — I recognise that. We should recognise that there are victims on all sides, but today our focus is on the security forces, and I would like to keep it there.
I do not support the amendment lightly. Members of my party and I have suffered in prison; some of my colleagues died there. However, I recognise the suffering of the people who were in the Prison Service and of their families. We forget that the families were victims as well, just as we forget that people such as myself and other prisoners were not the only people who served sentences.
Our families served the sentences with us, yet they were totally innocent. They were not guilty of anything but being our family members. We should remember them and the prison officers who served there.
The Secretary of State could also have used this opportunity to recognise the service of members of the Prison Service, but it was left to Mr Paisley Jnr to bring the issue to the attention of the Assembly and society. We must thank him for that.
In my 16 years of incarceration I regarded the prison staff as the enemy. I have come to recognise that my enemies of yesterday are not necessarily my future enemies, which is where I am focused. I want to make sure that both Republicans and members of the security forces can co-operate in the future. We must recognise the hurt and the pain that we inflicted upon others and that others inflicted upon us. That should be the spirit of this debate, and that is why I agree with most of the sentiments voiced by Mr Maginness.
I do not make these comments lightly. In prison, I suffered from draconian measures that were drawn up by prison regimes in these very grounds, but not in this Building. The measures were implemented by prison officers, some of whom wanted to use them — they were watched and, in many ways, they were amused by this infliction of pain on people. This does not apply to all prison officers, but to some, and this must be recognised.
We are under a new political dispensation, and we need to recognise that there are victims on all sides. I hope that this debate helps people to understand that, even if they do not want to admit it.

Mr Ivan Davis: The proponent of the motion said, at the outset, that he hoped that the debate would be dignified, so the comments of the Sinn Féin Member for Foyle were regrettable.
I congratulate my party Colleague Mr Kennedy on bringing this matter before the Assembly and I also support the amendment proposed by Mr Paisley Jnr. Those in the front line in the fight against terrorism have been neglected by the state; they have been forgotten. It is a fact that 203 UDR and RIR soldiers died in the period between the formation of the UDR and the ceasefires. As well as these deaths, 47 former members were murdered purely on account of their previous association with the regiment. Four hundred and fifty-two members of the regular Army also died in conflict, and perhaps many of them did not even understand what the conflict was about. In addition, over 500 UDR and RIR soldiers were wounded, along with thousands of regular soldiers.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the payments to RUC widows and the fund for injured police officers, former officers and their families. These awards are only right and proper, and although I, like other Members, may query the adequacy of what is being proposed, a start has been made to remedy a great wrong.
I support Mr Kennedy’s contention that the Secretary of State’s announcement does not go far enough, in that it refers only to police officers. The RUC bore the brunt of the terrorist campaign, with the deaths of 302 officers and almost 9000 injuries. It is only right that the relatives and those who were injured should be assisted, even at this late date.
There is no good reason for the scheme’s being limited to only the police. A comprehensive scheme that takes into account all those who have suffered in the service of the state since 1969 should be set up. During the First World War the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, spoke of making Britain a land fit for heroes to live in. The Government of the time, for various reasons, did not achieve that end. Today, with our increased prosperity and ability to take care of our fellow citizens in need, there is no reason for that generosity’s not being shown to those who sacrificed health and happiness to protect our country. The widows and families of UDR and other soldiers who died in the conflict are no less deserving than the widows and families of the police officers who died.
Over the years those widows faced financial hardship as they struggled to bring up young families. The children of those who were killed faced lost opportunities in education and careers because of the death of the main family breadwinners. In rural areas farms had to be sold as UDR men were murdered and the struggle to carry on became too great for the people who were left behind. Other widows, whose husbands did ordinary jobs, were forced to depend on the state or had to work to keep their families together.
Those who were injured faced a lifetime of pain and suffering and a loss of amenity. We should be generous to them and to their families. Whatever money is eventually paid out will never fully recompense loved ones for their loss and for the injuries they have suffered. It never could, but it can help to make the loss more bearable.
Today we are a rich nation with an expanding economy. What is being proposed in the motion will not be costly overall; it will be a mere pittance in the context of Governmental expenditure. If the Secretary of State takes the motion on board and gets agreement from his Cabinet Colleagues to expand the scheme proposed for the RUC, it will show a generosity of spirit and a basic humanity for which his Administration will be remembered. I support the motion.

Mr Norman Boyd: I support the motion, including the amendment to include the Prison Service. The only response I will make to Sinn Féin’s comments is that its terrorist wing, the Provisional IRA, has murdered hundreds of innocent Roman Catholics and Protestants, including courageous members of the security forces.
I had the privilege, along with Mr Roche of attending a fund-raising concert for the widows and relatives of innocent victims in the south Armagh area last Friday with Mr Kennedy in his constituency. I was humbled by the kindness and sincerity of these people who carry the scars of Republican terrorism and broken hearts that will never heal.
Of course, there is a difference between innocent victims of the security forces, who were upholding the rule of law, and those who were attempting to overthrow it. Regrettably, we have a Government that continues to reward terrorists who have committed the most heinous crimes and yet treat innocent victims very shabbily, sometimes ignoring them completely. There is now a long overdue opportunity for the Government to take practical steps to right some of the many wrongs they continue to be guilty of regarding victims’ issues. How many times have we, as Unionist Assembly Members, requested the Prime Minister, successive Secretaries of State and Northern Ireland Office Ministers to meet the innocent victims of Republican terrorism, only to have these requests refused? Yet at the drop of a hat the same Government Ministers will meet those guilty of the most horrendous crimes against society, even going into prisons to meet them.
To put these recent payments to RUC widows into context, I draw Members’ attention to pay-outs between 1995 and 1999 to terrorist prisoners through the European Union Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The total amount paid out to terrorist groups was over £4 million. The grants were used to provide education and training, resource centres, minibuses for prison visits, training for drivers for HGV licences, guitar and yoga lessons inside the Maze prison and even a computer for women prisoners at Maghaberry. This is quite disgraceful when the funding would have been better spent on the innocent victims of terrorist violence who have suffered throughout the last 30 years. To compound the hurt further, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust — in my view, a completely discredited body — which administers this European funding recently authorised a paltry sum of £2,000 for the Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR).
It is one of the largest victims groups in Northern Ireland with several hundred widows of RUC, UDR and RIR personnel in its membership. It is disgraceful that terrorist prisoners are receiving such large amounts, yet innocent victims receive very little, or nothing at all in many cases.
The Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, set up in November 1999, provided small grants of up to £500 each for victims. To apply for this funding, which was for essential items or services, the victims were put under all sorts of scrutiny and felt humiliated just trying to meet the criteria.
The announcement on 7 November regarding funding for RUC widows and injured officers is long overdue but is not enough. It is wrong to exclude UDR and RIR members and their families, many paying the supreme sacrifice for defending democracy and the rule of law against a vicious terrorist and ethnic cleansing campaign. Many widows and their families are still too frightened to speak up for fear of intimidation. While the package of £11 million for RUC widows is welcomed, it still does not achieve parity with those widows whose husbands were murdered after 1982. Many RUC widows who lost their husbands before 1982 have been left poverty-stricken. Some are receiving police pensions of less than £2,000.
The RUC widows group, Forgotten Families, has said that the package falls short of addressing the needs of widows. For example, a widow currently receiving a pension of £1,932 per annum could receive a lump sum of £31,000. If this lump sum were invested at a return of 8%, the income from it would be approximately £2,400 per year. This would mean that the widow would have a total annual income of £4,332. Not every widow will receive the maximum of £31,000 as it depends upon the date of the murder of the loved one. Some will receive an amount between £19,000 and £31,000, which would result in a smaller pension. How can a widow raise a young family on such an amount?
The Government acknowledge the sacrifice made by bereaved and injured officers and the hardship caused to their widows and families, yet they have only partially addressed the issue. The financial package for RUC widows should also have been extended to the widows and widowers of policemen and policewomen who died in non-terrorist incidents. Providing assistance to widows and families of Army, UDR and RIR personnel, as well as those who are retired or injured, must also be a priority. Hundreds of members have been brutally murdered or injured as a result of Republican terrorism. The vast majority came from isolated areas and were in the front line of the battle against terrorism. Many were murdered in front of their wives and children by cowardly scum. These are the forgotten victims.
There have also been 29 members of the Prison Service murdered by Republicans and so-called Loyalists. Many others have been seriously injured. It is vital, therefore, that members of the Prison Service and their families also receive financial support and Government recognition.
I support the motion.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the announcement of payments to RUC widows and disabled police officers. For many it is long overdue and, unfortunately, for others it is too late. The Government have tried to address the problems of the legislation prior to 1982, where limited amounts of compensation could be paid. To that extent the statement was welcome, and, in many ways, it recognises the hurt that those families have felt over the years. I also recognise the hurt of other families in the security services who have made similar sacrifices.
The issue looked fairly straightforward when Mr Kennedy brought forward his motion. However, then we had the amendment brought forward by Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. I do not have a problem with that. My problem is that over recent weeks Members have been queuing up to recognise the courage and sacrifices of the Fire Service, so why is the Fire Service not there?
In the past, other Assembly Members have recognised the sacrifices of the Ambulance Service. Why has the Ambulance Service not been included today?
Recently, I held a meeting with a victims’ support group comprising personnel from the Ambulance Service, the Fire Service and the RUC. Because of their attendance at explosions, particularly in the early years, some people claimed that they have contracted asbestosis. So, where do we draw the line?
As far as MrsNelis’s amendment is concerned, it is important that we recognise the needs of all victims of violence in our society. However, it is quite clear from her delivery that she was being selective. Government have not seriously addressed victims’ needs to date. Although SirKennethBloomfield’s report on compensation has moved the situation further, it did not go far enough. We need to go back to the drawing board and look at all victims of violence in our society.
In many ways, it is regrettable that this has turned out to be a points-scoring exercise — it is much more important than that. The people who matter most, the victims of violence, seem to have been turned into a political football. I am not selective about any victims of violence in this conflict and I assure you that many of the victims across Northern Ireland will not thank us for this debate today. I agree with Mr AMaginness. We need a more comprehensive motion to recognise the real needs of all victims of violence, and I appeal to those who tabled the original motion and the amendments to take on board the needs of all victims of violence in our society.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I noted with satisfaction the contents of the financial package announced by the Secretary of State for retired RUC officers and their families. Although no money can substitute for a husband, wife or family member, there are always financial consequences as a result of family disasters.
Although I endorse MrMandelson’s proposals for the RUC, I feel that, on the grounds of equality and fairness, members of the UDR, the Royal Irish Regiment, and the Army who have been affected by the Northern Ireland troubles should receive similar consideration.
Insofar as the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment are concerned, I would like to highlight a number of important factors. The men and women who joined the UDR, in 1970 and 1973 respectively, did so mostly out of loyalty to their country and through a personal desire to rescue their beloved Province from destruction and economic disaster. Financial reward was a secondary issue, which did not feature in their thinking.
However, costs arose from their loyalty and contribution to their community. Family farms or businesses were left — to a greater or lesser extent — in the hands of fathers or spouses to administer as best they could. Injury or death frequently led to the demise of a business or farm also. Men and women in full employment found that job security was poor. For example, a terrorist incident in an area could lead to redundancy under some false excuse.
Promotion, despite equality of opportunity and qualifications, also seemed to pass them by. As the terrorists’ campaign moved forward into the 1980s, employers began to show less and less tolerance or support to members of staff who were engaged in this part-time security work. Seeking employment became an exercise fraught with difficulty. When serving members resigned or were discharged, the personal threat and the threat to their families continued. The support that they received from local battalions was adequate initially, but, as such problems multiplied, they tended to fade from the security picture. To all intents and purposes, they and their families were left to get on with life as best they could.
Regular Army soldiers had been trained to fight a war. However, in 1970 they found themselves drawn into a policing or peacekeeping operation. For those soldiers that was a most unfortunate scenario — a war situation in which politics dictated that they had to use policing tactics. On that basis alone they were put into a position where they became sitting ducks for anything the terrorists threw at them.
The members of all security forces joined because of love for their country. They offered their lives to the Crown. Looking back, the Government took advantage of this commitment and generosity — they paid £2·50 for one night’s work. It was a pittance, and certainly not an initiative to join the UDR. The security forces were reasonably successful in their activities, and many terrorists were put behind bars. Those terrorist lawbreakers were well looked after. Some of them came out of prison with qualifications the length of an arm, as well as compensation which was used to build their lives. Those terrorists — some of them in this Building today — destroyed this country and cost the taxpayers billions of pounds. Meanwhile, all the security personnel and their families struggled to move forward.
Do Members not realise that, had it not been for the brave soldiers of the British Army and the UDR apprehending members of Sinn Féin/IRA, and other organisations, and putting them safely in prisons such as the Maze, many of these people might not be alive and in good health today? They have all now been released, when the risk of harm is over.
Therefore, for the Secretary of State to extend the same level of assistance to Army, UDR and RIR widows, to injured Army, UDR and RIR personnel, and to retired Army, UDR and RIR personnel, would be a small but significant gesture.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: We also welcome the recent package from the Secretary of State, as indeed we welcome last week’s package of £200,000 from Mark Durkan for the victims. My Colleague AlbanMaginness, in his usual erudite fashion, put the case for us. He spoke of reconciliation, which he took — not accidentally — from the agreement. The section in the agreement dealing with victims, small though it is, is packed with very interesting ideas for trying to deal with their problems. For example, it says that it is essential to
"address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation".
It also says that there should be
"community-based initiatives based on international best practice".
It also states that the provision of services should be
"supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims".
As well, there should be
"the allocation of sufficient resources, including statutory funding as necessary, to meet the needs of victims and to provide for community-based support programmes".
There should also be support for organisations dealing with the problems of victims. One presumes that this refers to Cruse Bereavement Care, The Samaritans and the other organisations that are so immensely valuable to people in these circumstances.
Not everyone will agree with the agreement but I doubt if many people could disagree with those organisations. All groups of victims should recognise that there is no monopoly on pain, and victims have no particular monopoly. Some have suffered bereavement, separation and physical and psychological injury. Many have been forced from their homes or have lost or had their property damaged, et cetera.
We need to consider whether the motion and the amendments attempt to deal with those problems. What about the reconciliation we heard about in the first statements? What have we heard today? No one can deny that Members have participated in a barracking session from one extreme of the Chamber to the other. They have signed up to the agreement, which called for reconciliation.
The motion and the amendments talk about compensation only, financial payments only. There is no evidence of providing community resources. What about the support services, the sensitive services? Are those mentioned? No, they are not. What do we have here today? We have a motion that calls for compensation only. All three — the two amendments and the motion — want money thrown at the problem. Money is necessary, but it is only one part of the problem.
Not only do we have that as the agenda; we also have an auction going on. Three political parties are trying to outbid one another, a repulsive kind of Dutch auction. The UUP is saying that it is the hero for those mentioned in the motion. The DUP is saying that it will show the public that the UUP does not care about those who are mentioned in its amendment. It will add the amendment and become the real hero. Sinn Féin, very cleverly, has tried to outmanoeuvre the whole lot by including everybody and trying to gain the high ground.
This is an awful, repulsive Dutch auction and an insult to all of the victims. I ask the three parties to withdraw the motion and the two amendments and to join with Colleagues to table a comprehensive motion to cover not only the groups mentioned but all our victims — a motion that will cover not only compensation but all of the things that victims need to support them through their trauma.

Mr Sam Foster: I support the motion tabled by my party Colleague Kennedy and the amendment from MrPaisley Jnr. I welcome the news that the wives of RUC officers murdered by terrorists are to benefit from the £11 million package of funds announced by the Secretary of State on 7November. This compensation package is long overdue and richly deserved, and I hope that the available funds will be increased to meet ongoing needs.
I am concerned, however, that the wives of UDR, Army, RIR and prison personnel have not been included in the compensation proposals. How does one make any distinction or degree of difference between the armed forces of the Crown when it comes to service and sacrifice? Brave men and women in all of those forces have given their lives, limbs and blood in the service of democracy, and it must surely be right that they and their families and dependants are cared for.
As a society, we have a duty to those who put their lives on the line to defend us. Is the pain and grief of any serving person’s mother, widow, sister or daughter less than that of any others? I cannot imagine so. Those ladies who remained in their homes over many lonesome nights in isolated areas are the unsung heroines of the callous and brutal acts that were perpetrated against their way of life. They watched over their homes and their children. They were and are the real axis around which the home revolves. They are heroines with courage of the highest order.
Can we imagine how it felt for them on the many nights they spent with fear running through their minds — mental torture indeed — awaiting with trepidation the horrible news that their loved one had been murdered? Most personnel were murdered when off duty, rather than when on duty, which exemplifies the gross danger that personnel were placed in 24 hours a day, every day of the week. Such courage is exemplary and demands the highest accolade that the Government can bestow. Many were gunned or blasted out of existence by a callous, brutal and morally corrupt enemy lurking in the undergrowth.
I served in the UDR and am proud to have done so. I had occasion to accompany doctors and clergy to a home to break the dreadful news of the death of a loved one to a colleague’s wife and family. Last Sunday I attended a UDR service of remembrance with laying up of colours in StMacartin’s Cathedral, Enniskillen. There was an act of remembrance for two battalions, one from west Tyrone and the other from Fermanagh, and a total of 65 names were read out — 40 from Tyrone and 25 from Fermanagh. It was a sad, solemn tribute to fallen comrades whom we should remember:
"They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old."
Those gallant people paid the supreme sacrifice. Are they and their dependants to be forgotten like turf in a clod?
The heartache, pain, distress and devastation suffered by their loved ones cannot go on being ignored. The valley of tears is the same for all personnel of Her Majesty’s forces. Such remarkable people cannot and must not be ignored by Government; it would be callous discrimination of the highest order if they were. We remember that the loved ones of those broken-hearted relatives served unstintingly, and the Government must ensure that those families are recompensed unstintingly. The soldiers of the UDR, Army and RIR, and the prison officers served Her Majesty with distinction. They never went out with premeditated murder on their mind. They went out to serve the community and did so proudly. As Longfellow said,
"And our hearts… like muffled drums, are beating funeral marches to the grave."
It is absurd that the wives and dependants of those brave security force personnel should have to seek compensation in the first place. It should be there as a matter of right — not as a form of charity to them, but as a debt of honour paid by those whom they have protected. We are, I hope, moving into a new era of political peace and democracy in Northern Ireland. We must look to the future and build for tomorrow but — I emphasise this — we also have a duty to remember those who made that new era possible, many of whom did so by making the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the amendment moved by Ian Paisley Jnr. It is important that we focus on the innocent victims of terrorism. Mr Foster — indeed, most of those who have spoken — focused on them, and I wish to do so as well.
We all recognise the contribution that past and present members of the Army, the UDR, the RIR and the Prison Service have made to society. I want to underline that, as it is very important. They selflessly committed hours of service to our community, night by night for those who were part-timers, and day by day for those who were full-time members. When the announcement was made that the RUC widows and the injured and retired officers and their families were to be recognised, I felt that it was what they truly deserved. A grateful community recognised and congratulated them, for they had given much. They did not look for very much but they gave much, and I believe that they deserve much in return.
However, we also want to consider the Army, the UDR, the RIR and the Prison Service, their injured and retired personnel and their families. We do so not just out of a sense of duty, but out of a deep sense of gratitude for all that they have done. We think of all those who served in the UDR, the RIR and all the other services. Some 40,000 part-time and full-time members of the UDR and RIR have given of their time.
Mr Sam Foster, the Minister of the Environment, spoke about his service in the UDR. Some of us have served in it as well. I can remember joining as an 18-year-old. I can remember doing three or four nights a week — that included training — and then going to work the next morning. We did not do it for financial advantage, as one Member suggested — there was no financial advantage. Mr Armstrong talked about getting £2·50; I thought it was £3·00 — perhaps I was getting 50 pence more than he was. The money was small — it was no incentive. People did it to make a contribution to the community and hoped that, in some small way, they would be able to rid society of the scourge of terrorism.
Our duty was to make the Province safer for the whole community, and we did not draw any distinction between one side and the other. That type of commitment went far above the call of duty for all who participated and contributed. I will give two examples of that commitment. One is a constituent of mine whom I know quite well. He served in the UDR, but today is unable to work. He was in a convoy in Belfast when two of his friends were blown up. He is traumatised and, as a result, he and his wife and children enjoy less quality of life than the rest of us. He will never work again. We have a commitment to help such people, to make a commitment to them, and do our best for them. That is what we want with this motion.
We need to support those families in some way. I talked to Mr Kennedy earlier, and he said that this was an occasion to recognise some of those who gave so much. I agree. Returning to my example, my constituent received a pension and got help from the Benevolent Fund, but it was not sufficient to look after all his needs as a family man.
The first UDR man to be killed was murdered outside my uncle’s farm at Clady near Strabane. I remember 10 December 1971, when my cousin, SergeantKennethSmyth of the UDR, and his friend DanielMcCormick, were murdered by IRA people who were able to rush 200 yards to sanctuary across the border, to the haven where murderers get away with what they do, and are not accountable to the law.
Is that fair play? I think not. We are here to recognise the innocent victims of terrorism, and that is what we want to do. Mr S Wilson referred to the number of Roman Catholics killed. My cousin, KennethSmyth, was a Protestant, and his friend, DanielMcCormick, was a Roman Catholic — both members of the UDR (one a serving member and one a past member). The IRA snuffed out their lives. There is something wrong with a society that allows that to happen. We want to recognise that, and commemorate it.
DanielMcCormick left five children — one of them disabled — and the IRA were not thinking about that when they killed him. To them he was an agent of the state, and it did not matter what his religion was or what community he came from. They were best friends, who worked together, played together and died together.
The Government did very little for their families. If there is any decency or justice, it is only right that the Army, the UDR, the Prison Service and the RIR receive assistance — payments for the widows, the injured personnel, the retired personnel and their families.
I support the amendment put forward by IanPaisleyJnr.

Mrs Joan Carson: I must point out that the security forces were protecting the whole community from terrorism. They were not protecting the Unionist and the Protestant community alone. They were protecting our whole community, and I regret that the SDLP have never recognised that. I think that their act today of playing Pontius Pilate in the Benches is something to be regretted.
I attended a poignant service on Sunday. It was the rededication of a memorial stone to members of the UDR and RIR who lost their lives protecting the whole community from terrorist attacks. I looked at the widows who had lost husbands, the young men and women who had lost fathers, and the children growing up without grandparents. The suffering and hardship of these good people cannot be quantified. All of the people, and I emphasise all of the people, in Northern Ireland owe the members of the UDR, RIR, and the security forces a great debt of gratitude. Those who paid the ultimate sacrifice at the hands of assassins also sacrificed their families for the good of the whole community. We must ensure that their families are neither forgotten nor neglected.
The Ulster Defence Regiment was a unique British Army regiment formed in 1970. The part-time element was recruited exclusively in Northern Ireland and used exclusively in Northern Ireland. The regiment was in continuous active service for longer than any other since the Napoleonic period.
We have already heard the numbers of injured and dead — I will not go over them again, but they were all soft targets. My own constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone has suffered greatly. Many men and women joined the security forces to do their duty of protecting the innocent — all of the innocent, and not just those in the Unionist community — from the evil atrocities perpetrated by this terrorist movement.
Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice. These people were easy targets because they lived in the community. Of the 197 murdered, 155 were off duty, going to or coming from work, or at home. They had no chance to defend themselves.
As a former teacher in Tyrone, I know of the hardships of wives forced to leave home, and children having to move school, leaving where their suffering could be understood for an area perceived to be safe. I know what it is like to teach children trying to cope with the loss of their father. It is heartbreaking.
Our security forces consisted of the UDR, RIR, Army, Prison Service and the RUC. We must count in their number many gallant Roman Catholics. I regret that the opposition Benches have not recognised that. They all served the people, ensuring the threat of terrorist attack was minimised. They were, and are, to be commended. They and their families should be treated equally. I support the motion and the amendment tabled by Ian Paisley Jnr. It is imperative that the Steele Report be extended to incorporate all the elements of the security forces. They selflessly protected the people from terrorism. We must remember the dead, but we must not forget the living.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and our United Kingdom Government why it has taken 30 years for these citizens, who have suffered so much, to be recognised. Why have the Government only recently recognised that there are more widows and families in need of help than those of RUC members? Why was no overall view taken of security force families until now? The Government have dragged their feet.
I support the motion.

Mr George Savage: I support the motion and the amendment put forward by Ian Paisley Jnr. I appeal to the Assembly to stand by the principle of parity of treatment, which all communities should now expect under our new partnership Government. It is only fair that widows of UDR, RIR and Army personnel should expect the same treatment as police widows. That should form part of any equitable general settlement. I am a plain, practical man. Speaking practically, no reasonable person could distinguish between the services of the police, UDR, RIR, Army, and the Prison Service. They were all part of the same security force, under the same central direction and answerable to the same authority. They were all charged with carrying out the same Government policy. All were acting under precisely the same orders and all came under exactly the same terrorist threat. All were confronted by the same danger.
It is an insult to their intelligence to differentiate between them. That is why RIR, UDR, Army and Prison Service widows should receive equal treatment. In law, the test is often that of the reasonable man. What would a reasonable man do in the circumstances? The same applies here — what would the reasonable man do? Faced with the same danger, and acting under the orders of the same authority, often acting in conjunction with one another — the widows of these gallant servicemen should be treated in exactly the same way as police widows.
Natural justice is another legal principle that is applicable here. It would be unjust to differentiate, for example, between police widows and UDR widows. In the comprehensive peace settlement the guiding principle should be generosity and not the penny-pinching that we had before. When I consider the massive savings of public money achieved through the scaling down of the security situation — and the size of the Chancellor’s war chest to fight the next general election for the Labour Party — I am amazed that the funding for this compensation cannot be found quickly.
For reasons of natural justice, and with a view to behaving as reasonable men and women, for reasons of parity and because of the overriding need for generosity in our behaviour towards one another in this new age of peace, I appeal to the Assembly to support this essential, decent and fair-minded motion. Money cannot compensate for the loss of a husband or a father, nor can it fill the empty chair left in so many homes throughout our Province. I make no apology for giving the best 13 years of my life to the Ulster Defence Regiment. Never did I see anyone step out of line. I hope that we who have survived will see fair play for the widows of our servicemen.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The House is right: whoever judges what is before him tonight can judge what is behind the main motion, which is genuine. My amendment is also genuine and is intended simply to fill a gap and endorse what is already on the record.
However, we should also look at the amendment before the House in the name of Sinn Féin. I do not believe that it is genuine, for its comments have demonstrated its concern that neither the amendment nor the motion should recognise the role played by the Provisional IRA. It did indeed play a role: it wrecked peace and destroyed the society which for more than 30 years it sought to undermine. That has been its motivation tonight, and the Assembly should judge its position.
I was amazed when I heard someone say that this was an attempt to get people onto the Mandelson gravy train. This comment came from an organisation whose members keep everyone else away from the gravy train as they seek gratuities from the Government. Look at the money the Government have thrown at issues that are the concern of Sinn Féin people. I quite unashamedly mention the "bloody Sunday" tribunal, which has cost over £30 million. Is it getting on a gravy train to give a few million pounds to grieving widows and disabled RUC, RIR, UDR and Prison Service members? What we heard tonight from Sinn Féin was disgusting. The political reality is that if they had not created the victims, there would be no need for this debate.
It is important that we contrast the great gap between the comments made tonight by Mr Billy Hutchinson and those made by Sinn Féin, and the House would be right to point it out. Sinn Féin’s atrocious comments have been vindictive and spiteful. Mr Hutchinson could have taken an anti-Prison Service attitude, for whatever reason, but he did not — something which says more about him than about Sinn Féin/IRA. It is right to recognise that. I hope that the House will reject the second amendment and accept mine.
I should like to place on record an extract from an article written by Gail Walker of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. She looked at the life of Victor Arbuckle, the first police officer murdered in the troubles. Having interviewed Dorothy Arbuckle many years after her husband had been appallingly murdered, Ms Walker said:
"Victor made the ultimate sacrifice, yet, scandalously, his widow received not gratitude and care and endless support but years of financial hardship. Dorothy endured a lonely struggle to feed, clothe and educate her son, just two when his father was killed."
He got a meagre £137 a month. This motion and the amendment I have put before the House are essential to send out a message to the Government that people who have allowed their husbands and wives to enter the police, the UDR, the RIR and the Prison Service to defend society deserve respect.
In that article, Gail Walker quoted Dorothy Arbuckle as saying
"I wonder what Victor would think of how we have been treated."
I am sure that now people are saying "I wonder what the victims think of the comments of Sinn Féin/IRA in this debate." They have been thoroughly atrocious.
I appeal across the House to the SDLP not to dance in the shadow of Sinn Féin/IRA. Come out of that shadow. Get off your self-erected high moral perch and take a decision that recognises, respects and rewards those people who defended this society, whether you like it or not, for me and for you. I appeal to you to vote for the amendment and not to run away from the challenge that is before this House.
The SDLP said that we should get together and sort something out. Here is a specific motion and a specific amendment that set down a criterion. Accept that tonight and make an effort to demonstrate that you do want to see people who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this society being rewarded in their hour of need.
I ask members to support the amendment.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to address some of the comments made in the debate. Mr Paisley Jnr says that the RUC, the British forces, and the Prison Service should be duly rewarded and given due recognition, but how are these organisations viewed by the Nationalist/Republican community? As bereaved relatives of state violence have seen and experienced, those are the forces responsible for the death and torture of their loved ones. Mr Paisley Jnr wants us to applaud them and pay them compensation.
Mr Maginness accused me of being selective, but my motion is entirely consistent with what he wants. It is quite explicit in that it addresses all victims. Who will speak for the victims of state violence? Has Mr Maginness spoken for them? Who will acknowledge that their grief is as legitimate as everyone else’s? Does Mr Maginness believe that Peter Mandelson’s announcement addresses their needs?
I remind those on the opposite Benches that Loyalists on the Shankill Road killed the first RUC member murdered in this conflict. I also remind them of their parties’ close associations with an organisation called Ulster Resistance, an organisation that Michael Stone claimed, on television last week, first armed him.
Getting back to my party’s amendment, all victims and bereaved families deserve to have their pain acknowledged and their needs addressed. The signing of the Good Friday Agreement, one hoped, would be the time, and create the climate for such a move. Indeed, victims’ groups were beginning that painful process of engaging and talking. The victims of state violence and the RUC widows were getting together and discussing the commonality of their pain and grief.
The announcement by Peter Mandelson has put that delicate process in jeopardy and has subverted the need and the search for truth for victims and survivors, which is central to this process. He has supported the concept that state forces are above the truth, are not amenable, and should be applauded and rewarded. The father of nine-year-old Patrick Rooney, shot dead by the RUC in 1969; Jim McCabe, the husband of Nora McCabe; the parents of children killed by plastic bullets; the children of Sammy Devenney; the 400-plus victims killed by the state; the relatives of the many Loyalists also killed by the state, whom Billy Hutchinson mentioned — they understand the pain and grief that others have experienced. What they cannot understand is why they are treated differently.
The continued attempt to operate a hierarchy of victims has done little to heal all our wounds. The failure to understand and recognise equally all victims, survivors and their families is in essence sectarian. It is about presenting a very narrow definition of the causes and effects of conflict in this part of Ireland. Peter Mandelson’s announcement reaffirms to the relatives of the victims of state violence that their hurt, their pain and their trauma are somewhat less important.
I do not accept that I was being selective. In fact, I acknowledge that with regard to the loss of a loved one, all grief is the same. But, according to Peter Mandelson’s announcement and the opinions of Members speaking today, some grief is different. I make no apologies for raising the issue of state violence, for no one else in this Chamber has had the courage to do so. A hierarchy of victims is in place, with the victims mentioned in Mr Kennedy’s motion at the top, and those murdered by the state at the bottom. Who in this Chamber is asking the families of those killed by the RUC, the UDR or the British Army how they feel? Why will Peter Mandelson not even meet them? As for the monetary packages, let us put them in perspective: £11 million for the RUC and £200,000 to victims’ support groups. Contrary to what Eamonn ONeill has stated, I did raise the recommendations contained in the Good Friday Agreement, and I will finish by quoting these words:
"The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence."

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up. This has been an important debate. I listened carefully to all the speeches, and I thank the Members for the content of most of them. I have indicated that I will be accepting the amendment of Mr Paisley Jnr. I am happy to confirm that again, and according to the contributions I have heard, acceptance of that amendment is widespread. I strongly agree with Mr Paisley Jnr that the Benevolent Fund should never be used by the Government as a substitute to providing adequate state compensation.
With regard to the contribution of the Member for Foyle, Mrs Nelis, I, like many others, was greatly offended by its tone and spirit. It was most unfortunate that we had to hear a litany of Republican bile. I draw a clear distinction between the actions of the security forces and their role in conflict and those of people who go out to perpetrate atrocities, to murder and to maim. That is a very clear distinction in the minds of all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland. Neither can I accept the idea of a hierarchy of victims. I know that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield did not accept that in his main report.
I listened with interest to the lecture from Mr Maginness. It was interesting that his party has proposed no motion on reconciliation to the Assembly for its consideration. He ought to bear in mind that when it employs personnel to act on its behalf, the state has a duty to look after and cater for their families in the event of their death. I sincerely think he is wrong in his assessment of my motion.
I want to thank Paul Berry and several other Members. I agree with Mr Berry that there should be no half-hearted attempt made with regard to compensation for the security forces. I was interested in Mr Hutchinson’s contribution. He recognised at least that this motion was aimed at alleviating the sacrifices made in the service of the security forces. It was brave of him to accept that prison officers should be included. It highlighted a real difference between him and Sinn Féin. I also want to thank my Colleague Mr IvanDavis for his contribution, and Mr NormanBoyd, Member for South Antrim.
I am sorry that MrNeeson is not in the Chamber. His speech was a classic Alliance statement. He initially welcomed the announcement and then went on to criticise the motion. His speech was curious in that respect, but perhaps one should never be surprised by the antics of the Alliance Party. One of the significant points that he made was that the motion omitted the Ambulance Service and the Fire Service. I must remind MrNeeson that they are emergency services. This motion is clearly aimed at the security services, of which prison officers are very much part.
I thank my Colleague Mr BillyArmstrong for his contribution. Mr ONeill did not bring forward a motion in his own name or on behalf or his party, nor did he supply an amendment. We had another lecture on reconciliation. It was clear that Mr ONeill has not read the Steele Report or its recommendations. It was also clear that he wrote his speech before hearing the debate. That was a mistake.
I thank my Colleague MrFoster, Minister of the Environment, for taking time out of his extensive ministerial duties to contribute to and be part of this important debate. I also thank MrShannon and my Colleagues Mrs Joan Carson and Mr GeorgeSavage. It is important to remember MrsCarson’s point about the contribution of Roman Catholics in the security forces and their sacrifices. That should be borne in mind by everyone in the community.
MrSavage rightly said that there should never be any differentiation made between the contributions and sacrifices of the security forces. It is impossible to say to any member of the Army, UDR, RIR, RUC, or to any of their families who are victims, that their contribution was less, or less valued, than anyone else’s. That was an important point.
I am grateful for this debate. I recognise, of course, that it is a reserved power. It is a matter for the Government, the Secretary of State and others to bring forward proposals and recommendations. I hope that they will move speedily to do so. It is right that we remember that the sacrifices of the security forces crossed the sectarian divide.
This motion seeks to address the great injustice that has been carried out against the security forces in relation to compensation. I wait with interest to see what others, particularly the SDLP, will do. I am also saddened that there was no contribution to today’s debate from the Women’s Coalition. On other occasions they have been very keen to lecture Members about remembrance and all that that involves.
I commend the motion and ask the entire House to give it its wholehearted support.
Question, 
Question, 
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly welcomes the announcement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 7November2000 of payments to RUC widows and the fund for injured police officers, retired officers and their families; and calls on the Secretary of State to provide the same level of assistance to Army/UDR/RIR widows, injured Army/UDR/RIR personnel, retired Army/UDR/RIR personnel, injured Prison Service personnel, retired Prison Service personnel and widows of Prison Service personnel and their families.
Adjourned at 5.50 pm.